In today's Times Libby Purves has written an article about testing for British Citizenship. Many countries have introduced such a test for immigrants.
The French are planning a new citizenship test that candidates for naturalisation must pass. President Sarkozy places importance on cultural assimilation and understanding of the philosophical basis of French equality, liberty and fraternity. The Interior Ministry adds that there must be basic knowledge of his country’s artistic history, great painters, writers and philosophers, as well as its contemporary culture. The British test has some basic stuff about Parliament and elections, but is mainly a cautious mish-mash of stuff about MoT tests, benefits, and the Council of Europe. It demands that you know the exact number of days per year when schools are legally required to open and is dusted with some dottily detailed questions about population statistics, a ridiculous inquiry as to which “issues” young people in the UK most worried about in a survey made eight long years ago, and a multiple-choice question about whether married women got the right to divorce husbands in 1837, 1857, 1875 or 1882.
Canada’s is detailed and proud, asking for the six main responsibilities of citizenship, the meaning of the Remembrance poppy, major rivers and natural resources, and whether the national symbol is a moose, hawk, beaver or bear. The Dutch are proud, too, at least of their social attitudes. They demand knowledge that nude sunbathing is legal, and preface the test with a film of two men kissing, and a prostitute. (There has been some fuss about whether all this is covertly Islamophobic , and one indignant message-boarder says: “Basically you must be a degenerate to obtain Dutch nationality.”) The German test asks, equally contentiously some say, whether the candidate believes that Israel has the right to exist. Again, one learned paper in a European think-tank attacks that as being anti-Muslim thought-policing.
Libby has made up her own list:
• Who stands on that pillar in Trafalgar Square and why?
• Do we have theatre censorship?
• Why is sea trade important to Britain?
• Who should you complain to about a TV programme that offends you?
• Write 30 words on either the British attitude to pigs or Winnie the Pooh or Alan Bennett or David Beckham or Bob Geldof.
• Who is Dame Vera Lynn? or What is another meaning of the word dame, especially around Christmas?
• Name a Shakespeare play or three songs by Lennon and McCartney.
• What did William Wilberforce achieve?
• What was Dunkirk or D-Day?
• Is Coronation Street (a) a television show or (b) the Queen’s address?
• If you wanted to know about toad-in-the-hole, would you be more likely to ask (a) Sir David Attenborough (b) Delia Smith (c) Alan Titchmarsh?
• Are you allowed to swear at a policeman?
• What is the National Trust? A zebra crossing? The Premier League?
One commentator has answered these :
1. Lord Nelson – naval hero and won a number of battles.
2. Not since the 1960s but the matter is still under discussion
3. We are an island doh! Sea trade is our lifeline.
4. Ofcom
5. Pigs are highly intelligent animals and provide wonderful meat, bacon, ham and sausages. Traditionally, they were fed on household scraps, waste milk products and so were environmentally friendly. So there!
6. Dame Vera Lynn is a singer and performer who performed all over the world in wartime to raise morale. Love her to bits
7. King Lear – appropriate for these difficult times.
8. He abolished slavery
9. D-Day was when our troops landed in Europe, including my father.
10. Corry – TV show
11. Toad in the hole – Delia Smith but I bet DA would have something to say on the matter too.
12. No – not AT a policeman. The recent case was about a man who swore IN FRONT of a policeman as he was so ignorant, the “F” word was part of his normal vocab.
13. The National Trust takes over and runs, for public enjoyment, large houses and estates which are part of our historical heritage.
I don't think that these answers are strictly accurate but they are close enough to pass, but to my mind they are the wrong sort of questions. Another comments thus:
What do any of these questions have to do with true citizenship? Since when did knowing a load of facts and having a good guess at the rest matter? What counts is being able to earn a living, speaking English, good manners etc. and a lot to be said for loving thy neighbour.
I tend to agree.
What we need is not a test but a pledge, and this should apply not only to those applying for citizenship, but to all those entering the country. Those breaking their word on this pledge should be immediately expelled. The pledge would go something like this: Do you agree while living in the UK to respect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, including witnessing for your faith, the right to own property, the right of free assembly, and do you agree to abstain from violence, intolerance of the behaviour of others, insulting behaviour and to obey the criminal law on pain of expulsion from the country without appeal?
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Monday, November 28, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Latest on Occupy London
Occupy London St Pauls has been trying to raise its image. Here what an independent investigation has found: ‘Desecration: graffiti have been scratched and painted on to the great west doors of the cathedral, the chapter house door and most notably a sacrilegious message painted on the restored pillars of the west portico.
‘Human defecation has occurred in the west portico entrance and inside the cathedral on several occasions.’
There have been noisy interruptions during services, foul language directed at staff and the use of alcohol and ‘other stimulants’ that appeared to ‘fuel the noise levels day and night'.
More than half of schools scheduled to visit the cathedral had cancelled since the occupation began on October 15. Drop-in visitor numbers were also down by half.
A further witness statement from a police inspector expressed ‘mounting concern of drugs within the camp’ including ‘what is currently believed to be a liquid class A drug'.
Social workers have also raised concerns the camp is attracting vulnerable people with mental health and substance abuse problems.
Anti-capitalist protesters were served with an eviction notice by the City of London Corporation last week
Another activist admitted there had been problems with protesters urinating on each other’s tents, and called for a ban on drink and drugs, telling the group: ‘Recreational drinking isn’t something we should passionately support — this is a movement trying to overthrow capitalism,’ she said, adding that anyone wanting to have a drink or 'do a few lines’ (presumably of cocaine) could go off-site.
A member of the so-called Tranquillity Team, a roster of protesters who spend the nights trying to quell trouble, says they have been rushed off their feet dealing with problems, and that people carousing on the cathedral steps have been keeping everyone awake until dawn.
Meanwhile, a member of the finance team implored people to stop asking for money that has been donated to the camp. 'We won’t give out money for cigarettes or booze,’ he said, clearly exasperated. 'Please don’t even bother asking.’
Legal notice was served on the camp on Thursday, a day after U.S. police cleared the Occupy Wall Street camp in New York. The Corporation had halted earlier court action to hold talks with protesters. But policy chairman Stuart Fraser said the negotiations went ‘nowhere’.
Naomi Colvin, for Occupy London, insisted the threat of eviction ‘was not something we need to be remotely worried about’. She added: ‘It could take months. We will contest it.’
Apparently 'The Great Unwashed's' 'headquarters' is the nearby Starbucks because there's free WiFi, its warm and dry and they need somewhere to spend their job seekers allowance (paid for by us tax payers who include a few capitalists I imagine!).
‘Human defecation has occurred in the west portico entrance and inside the cathedral on several occasions.’
There have been noisy interruptions during services, foul language directed at staff and the use of alcohol and ‘other stimulants’ that appeared to ‘fuel the noise levels day and night'.
More than half of schools scheduled to visit the cathedral had cancelled since the occupation began on October 15. Drop-in visitor numbers were also down by half.
A further witness statement from a police inspector expressed ‘mounting concern of drugs within the camp’ including ‘what is currently believed to be a liquid class A drug'.
Social workers have also raised concerns the camp is attracting vulnerable people with mental health and substance abuse problems.
Anti-capitalist protesters were served with an eviction notice by the City of London Corporation last week
Another activist admitted there had been problems with protesters urinating on each other’s tents, and called for a ban on drink and drugs, telling the group: ‘Recreational drinking isn’t something we should passionately support — this is a movement trying to overthrow capitalism,’ she said, adding that anyone wanting to have a drink or 'do a few lines’ (presumably of cocaine) could go off-site.
A member of the so-called Tranquillity Team, a roster of protesters who spend the nights trying to quell trouble, says they have been rushed off their feet dealing with problems, and that people carousing on the cathedral steps have been keeping everyone awake until dawn.
Meanwhile, a member of the finance team implored people to stop asking for money that has been donated to the camp. 'We won’t give out money for cigarettes or booze,’ he said, clearly exasperated. 'Please don’t even bother asking.’
Legal notice was served on the camp on Thursday, a day after U.S. police cleared the Occupy Wall Street camp in New York. The Corporation had halted earlier court action to hold talks with protesters. But policy chairman Stuart Fraser said the negotiations went ‘nowhere’.
Naomi Colvin, for Occupy London, insisted the threat of eviction ‘was not something we need to be remotely worried about’. She added: ‘It could take months. We will contest it.’
Apparently 'The Great Unwashed's' 'headquarters' is the nearby Starbucks because there's free WiFi, its warm and dry and they need somewhere to spend their job seekers allowance (paid for by us tax payers who include a few capitalists I imagine!).
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Racism in Sport
South Africa-born former England cricket all-rounder Basil D'Oliveira has died at the age of 80. Fifty years ago South Africa was in the grip of Apartheid and Basil, by far the best cricketer in that country was, as a 'cape-coloured', not allowed to play cricket officially. He wrote to the English Cricket commentator, John Arlott, in green ink to ask if it was possible for him to play in England. Within 2 years he was an England international. He finished with a Test batting average over 40 an unusually high average for an all rounder.
Eventually Basil was a major catalyst for the ending of apartheid in South Africa, still the greatest success for the anti-racist movement worldwide.
This all sets the current 'crisis' about racism in football.
In a sense the racism battle has already been won. When I was married in 1967 I caused a little bit of squirming by choosing an ethnic Indian as my best-man. He was actually a Kenyan whose parents had left Goa, a former Portuguese colony on the west coast of India. He was also a Christian.
In Switzerland Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president has upset some English footballers (and David Beckham) by suggesting that racial insults on the pitch should be forgiven and forgotten with a handshake at the end of the game. Blatter has since apologized and withdrawn his statement. It goes to show that it is unwise to comment on a situation that you are not really part of.
FIFA was already in bad odour because of widespread belief that delegates within the inner circle are irredeemably corrupt and by a silly refusal to allow English and Welsh players to wear embroidered poppies on their shorts for international matches played over Armistice weekend.
There are two current issues in the English Premier League under consideration. In one the Liverpool player Soares, who is Spanish is accused of calling the Man U, French player, Patrice Evra, a 'nigger', though this may be a language problem between French, English and Spanish. I did watch this match, though, and felt that Saurez spent the whole match trying to niggle Evra including with foul tackles from behind which went unpunished.
The other case involves John Terry who reportedly was abusive to Anton Ferdinand, the brother of former England captain Rio Ferdinand. Both the Ferdinands are of mixed race and I don't thing it is the racial content of the insult that is the greatest offence of it. Terry reportedly used the 'C' word to describe Ferdinand. Terry is a London lout with a history of bad behavior; it runs in his family. Since both Terry and Rio Ferdinand are reaching the end of their careers and have been vying for the England captaincy, one can easily see where the tensions lie.
I suspect most readers, unless vehement supporters of the various clubs that the players are attached to, will regard this as a storm in a tea cup. I remember the days when fans used to take inflatable bananas to football matches to imply that black players were descended from monkeys. Things have greatly improved in England, though no doubt there are still places where racism persists. The number of black faces that one sees on television and in parliament suggests that the great prejudice about race that did exist when I was a boy has largely been dissipated with succeeding generations.
There is no doubt that prejudice does still exist. In London we are seeing a trial of two white guys who allegedly murdered a black man at a bus stop. That was 19 years ago and at the time the London Police Force was declared to be 'institutionally racist'.. With large waves of ethnically different immigrants, particularly in London, since then, one might have expected the situation to get worse. Yet it is difficult to make that judgement honestly. Police are prejudiced against criminal and large numbers of young black men are criminals, as the London riots in the summer have confirmed. It is clearly wrong to racially stereotype people, but then it is probably inevitable. Stopping and searching old white (or black) ladies would be a waste of police time. Topping and searching young men in parts of East London makes more sense if applied to white youths (there are very few black youths there) but in West London, most young men are Asian and in South London, Afro-Caribbean or Nigerian.
In Scotland the main divide is sectarian between Catholic and Protestant. This too spills out onto the football pitch. The recent fine of £34,000 that EUEFA imposed on the Bulgarian Football Association for chanting abuse at black England footballers at a EUEFA qualifier demonstrates that Racism has not been eliminated from football, but it has been reduced by a great deal while I have been watching the game.
Eventually Basil was a major catalyst for the ending of apartheid in South Africa, still the greatest success for the anti-racist movement worldwide.
This all sets the current 'crisis' about racism in football.
In a sense the racism battle has already been won. When I was married in 1967 I caused a little bit of squirming by choosing an ethnic Indian as my best-man. He was actually a Kenyan whose parents had left Goa, a former Portuguese colony on the west coast of India. He was also a Christian.
In Switzerland Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president has upset some English footballers (and David Beckham) by suggesting that racial insults on the pitch should be forgiven and forgotten with a handshake at the end of the game. Blatter has since apologized and withdrawn his statement. It goes to show that it is unwise to comment on a situation that you are not really part of.
FIFA was already in bad odour because of widespread belief that delegates within the inner circle are irredeemably corrupt and by a silly refusal to allow English and Welsh players to wear embroidered poppies on their shorts for international matches played over Armistice weekend.
There are two current issues in the English Premier League under consideration. In one the Liverpool player Soares, who is Spanish is accused of calling the Man U, French player, Patrice Evra, a 'nigger', though this may be a language problem between French, English and Spanish. I did watch this match, though, and felt that Saurez spent the whole match trying to niggle Evra including with foul tackles from behind which went unpunished.
The other case involves John Terry who reportedly was abusive to Anton Ferdinand, the brother of former England captain Rio Ferdinand. Both the Ferdinands are of mixed race and I don't thing it is the racial content of the insult that is the greatest offence of it. Terry reportedly used the 'C' word to describe Ferdinand. Terry is a London lout with a history of bad behavior; it runs in his family. Since both Terry and Rio Ferdinand are reaching the end of their careers and have been vying for the England captaincy, one can easily see where the tensions lie.
I suspect most readers, unless vehement supporters of the various clubs that the players are attached to, will regard this as a storm in a tea cup. I remember the days when fans used to take inflatable bananas to football matches to imply that black players were descended from monkeys. Things have greatly improved in England, though no doubt there are still places where racism persists. The number of black faces that one sees on television and in parliament suggests that the great prejudice about race that did exist when I was a boy has largely been dissipated with succeeding generations.
There is no doubt that prejudice does still exist. In London we are seeing a trial of two white guys who allegedly murdered a black man at a bus stop. That was 19 years ago and at the time the London Police Force was declared to be 'institutionally racist'.. With large waves of ethnically different immigrants, particularly in London, since then, one might have expected the situation to get worse. Yet it is difficult to make that judgement honestly. Police are prejudiced against criminal and large numbers of young black men are criminals, as the London riots in the summer have confirmed. It is clearly wrong to racially stereotype people, but then it is probably inevitable. Stopping and searching old white (or black) ladies would be a waste of police time. Topping and searching young men in parts of East London makes more sense if applied to white youths (there are very few black youths there) but in West London, most young men are Asian and in South London, Afro-Caribbean or Nigerian.
In Scotland the main divide is sectarian between Catholic and Protestant. This too spills out onto the football pitch. The recent fine of £34,000 that EUEFA imposed on the Bulgarian Football Association for chanting abuse at black England footballers at a EUEFA qualifier demonstrates that Racism has not been eliminated from football, but it has been reduced by a great deal while I have been watching the game.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Straights fight back against gay pride
In recent time the Gay Pride lobby has become more strident, even arranging prosecution of people going about their normal behavior.
I post here an e-mail that I received today from Davis Skinner:
Dear Friends,
I recently wrote to ask that you protest against Tesco sponsoring London Pride 2011 and World Pride 2012.
I wish to thank all those who have responded and those who have written to me with advice and encouragement as to how to motivate more people to engage with issues that threaten us in these perplexing times. You may have seen the result of our letters in the Daily Mail:
Well done and God bless you all. However, Tesco is totally unrepentant, preferring instead to shift attention away from their evil and wicked sponsorship to the charities that they can more than afford. No doubt many of you may have received a Tesco letter such as this:
“Thank you for your email addressed to Andrew Higginson, our Chief Executive of Retailing Services, to which I have been asked to respond. ………We believe that everyone should be welcome at Tesco. This is reflected in the people we employ and the customers we serve. It is also reflected in the broad range of organisations and causes we support…………Last year we donated over £64 million to charities and good causes across the world. This amounted to 1.8 percent of pre-tax profits; nearly doubling our goal for 2010. ……Each year in the UK we select a national charity as our Charity of the Year which represents a cause our customers and staff care about……….. We are proud to support this wide range of charities and community initiatives and look forward to continuing to do so…… trust that I have clarified our position on this matter.
Kind Regards
Frances Hickling
Chief Executive’s Office”
Below is my letter in response, explaining that World Pride 2012 will be a moment of national shame, not pride. I would urge you to keep up the pressure on Tesco. Please write back to them in your own words or using part of my letter. Please make your voices heard before this freedom of speech is taken away, as the previous government has threatened to do, if it returns to power.
Contact details: philip.clarke@uk.tesco.co; or customer.service@tesco.co.uk;
or ceo.customerservice@tesco.co.uk; or cr.enquiries@uk.tesco.com For comments or questions on Tesco's Corporate Responsibility Report please contact Sir Richard Broadbent, Chairman, Tesco, PLC, Delamare Road, CheshuntEN8 9SL
also see:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
TO CUSTOMER SERVICES TESCO
To whoever it may concern
Dear Sir/Madam,
It is with regret that it seems to me that Tesco have come under the domination of OUTatTESCO and that though it might donate 1.8% of its gross profits to good causes (which for a company of this size is a modest amount; I personally donate 20% of my net income) this can in no way compensate for its sponsoring such shameful, dehumanising and degrading events as London Pride or World Pride 2012.
Perhaps I am being unfair when I say that I anticipate that your reply to my concerns might be something along the lines of, “Dear Sir/Madam, Tesco is striving to achieve a fairer, 21st century, multicultural society where there is great diversity of lifestyles ……… and that consequently this case is now closed.” And indeed, absolutely on queue I have just received such an answer that says, “I understand that you are unhappy about this situation and your comments have been duly noted. However, I have nothing further to add to the comments in my previous correspondence and our position on this matter remains unchanged.
Kind Regards
Gary Menzies
Customer Service Executive”
If that should be the case, I have to emphasise that the rapidly degenerating state of our once great Nation, being in as much danger, if not more, than the one it faced in World War 11, especially if the genuine concerns of the public are treated with such contempt, also remains unchanged. This issue will not go away.
I need to say at the outset that I wish in no way to attack those vulnerable and fragile men and women, boys and girls who possibly, through no choice - initially - of their own, have developed an emotional disorder or sexual addiction - not through genetics but through environmental influences - even sexual abuse - coupled maybe with temperamental weakness. These require our love, compassion and assistance - not condemnation. Indeed there but by the grace of God go I. However, with regard to the out-proud, militant and proselytising homosexuals, who, with the support of Tesco and the British government, have visited their cruelty on Peter and Hazelmary Bull, an elderly Christian couple, who run a bed and breakfast business in their own home, in Cornwall, I can only say that by using ambiguous laws, fear, oppression and tyranny, the government and Tesco have declared war on the people of Britain.
Peter and Hazelmary, like Tesco, are in the business of providing goods and services. But, unlike Tesco, they refused to bow to the dictats and bullying of gay pressure groups. At the beginning of 2011 they were informed that they had contravened the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) because they had discriminated against two gay men, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, by refusing them a double bed.
In addition to having to pay damages of £3600 to them, homosexuals then besieged their guesthouse with demands for double rooms, seemingly in a bid to destroy the business. Mrs Bull, 66, also received abusive and menacing phone calls, whilst her 71-year-old husband lay critically ill in hospital. Does Tesco support such behaviour?
I have generated a government e-petition, in support of Mr and Mrs Bull, asking for the repeal or drastic amendment to the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) which like the outlet of an effluent pipe, continues to pump its toxic waste into British society:
With homosexuals, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, there is no “live and let live”. They knew perfectly well how deeply offensive it would be to Mr and Mrs Bull to have anyone performing sodomy under their roof - whether married or unmarried, male or female. The men could have respected how they felt and gone elsewhere. They had a choice of many double beds in Cornwall catering for their “special tastes”, but no; the evidence points to their having been emboldened in their action by Stonewall, the homosexual bullying lobby group.
It is vital that we understand who generated the SORs, the purpose of which is to destroy traditional marriage and family life. This might sound and extreme claim, but read Peter Tatchell’s vision for the future just a few paragraphs further down.
The SORs were not handed down from heaven; neither are they based upon self-evident and universal truths. They were spawned in the imagination of Stonewall’s former chief executive, Angela Mason et al who is a commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the outfit responsible for hauling Mr and Mrs Bull through the courts). Not only was she responsible for setting up the Equality and Human Rights Commission (ECHR),she was responsible for overseeing the Sexual Orientation Regulations when she headed up the Women’s Equality Unit from 2003 to 2007. She is also a Marxist, lesbian, IVF mother, ex-member of anarchist group, the Angry Brigade (who in 1971 conducted a campaign of terror bombings in London). She also chairs the feminist organisation, the Fawcett Society (whose former chair, Dr Katherine Rake said “We want to transform the most intimate and private relations between women and men.”)
For Tesco to throw itself with such enthusiasm into this experiment in social engineering, by promoting sterile ‘different families’, who are unwilling to reproduce in the natural way, that come in all shapes and sizes, where there is no recognisable parentage, and where children are treated as commodities and trophies to be used as human shields to infiltrate our schools, sports clubs and scouting associations with gay propaganda, can only be described as an act of wanton anarchy – beyond anything we saw this Summer on the streets of London.
When law abiding members of the public like foster parents, Mr and Mrs Johns, the housing officer Adrian Smith, and a growing list that includes teachers, therapists, councillors, counsellors, magistrates, paediatricians, registrars, nurses, firemen, policemen and clergy - people from every walk of life - are publically humiliated, fined, forced out of their occupation, forced to close down their business, dragged through the courts, threatened with violence by gays, and compelled to pay for their own oppression through their taxes (for simply trying to halt this anarchy and to defend the values and morality of traditional marriage and the family) and presumably with the approval of Tesco, this is not likely to improve your ratings with the general public either.
To see the kind of vision for Britain that Tesco is promoting, let us have it from the horse’s mouth. Peter Tachtell in “Beyond Equality” writes:
“In many ways, our transcending of heterosexual mores is a positive and immensely liberating experience. Compared with most straights, queers tend to be more sexually adventurous with a wider repertoire of sexual behaviour, less bound by the strictures of traditional morality, and more experimental in terms of relationships. We don't need a marriage certificate to validate our partnerships.”
“Although getting rid of homophobic discrimination is a laudable aim, it doesn't go far enough. Ending anti-gay bias will not resolve all the problems faced by lesbian and gay people. Some of our difficulties arise not from homophobia, but from the more general eroto-phobic and sex-negative nature of contemporary culture.”
“We get equality, but at a price. The cost to our community is the surrender of our unique, distinctive queer identity. The unwritten social contract at the heart of law reform is that lesbians and gays will behave respectably and comply with the heterosexual moral agenda. No more cruising, orgies or sadomasochism!”
In “Teenage Sex-What Should Schools Teach Children?” he writes:
“Until very recent times, all sex education was overwhelmingly biased towards promoting heterosexuality, marriage, parenthood and traditional family life. Anything outside this exclusive framework was either ignored or condemned”……“This old-style monocultural sex moralism is now totally out of sync with our modern multicultural society where there is a great diversity of cultures and communities, lifestyles and love-lives.”…..” Nothing must be off limits”…..“Sex education, to be effective, needs to start at a very early age, beginning gently in the first year of primary school and gradually becoming more detailed and explicit at secondary level”……“The best way to persuade teenagers to adopt oral sex and mutual masturbation is by making them look and sound sexy.”
But Tatchell, in “Insignificant Other” wants to go beyond to something called the Civil Commitment Pact, where any kind of relationship is given social and legal recognition.
“For these reasons, I have suggested a new legal framework – Civil Commitment Pact. It would allow people to nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any 'significant other' in their life. This could be a partner or lover, but it could also be a sister, carer, house-mate, favourite nephew or life-long best friend. “Any new partnership legislation should allow people to select from a menu of rights and responsibilities. This flexibility would enable them to devise a tailor-made partnership agreement suited to their own particular needs.”
It's clear to see where Tatchell is taking us with “any kind of relationship”.
I now draw your attention back to Tesco's World Pride 2012 sponsorship. Without doubt, as each year passes, and the gay lobby become more emboldened, this will become more extreme until it begins to resemble the obscene Folsom Street Fair in California which was described this year as being like “nothing in the world.. with 400,000 kinky friends spread out over 13 city blocks of adult entertainment”: BEFORE viewing these links, I apologies in advance and give a strong warning about the outrageous and highly explosive nature of this GayPride material.
TESCO PROMOTIONS : SCENES FROM LONDONANDMANCHESTER PRIDE (note man and his dog at 3min50 seconds) (note sex workers marching in parade)
GAY HEALTH AND SAFETY PROMOTED BY TESCO
The 1% of the population who identify themselves as gay or bi-sexual are responsible for almost 50% of sexually transmitted diseases.
The Pink News reported,“New figures from the body show that men who have sex with men and young adults are the most at-risk groups for infections.
The HPA said that in cases where sexual orientation was recorded, 64 per cent of new syphilis infections and 40 per cent of new gonorrhoea infections were found in gay or bisexual men.”
It also said,
“More than 100,000 people are expected to be living with HIV by next year, at an annual treatment cost of almost £1 billion. In 2010, 45 per cent of those diagnosed were gay or bisexual men.”
Other sponsors of London and World Pride are the Terrance Higgins Trust, supposedly an HIV and sexual health charity that has been granted £203,528 government funding to run a sex education programme in English schools and youth clubs. This outrageous programme, called the Sexual Health Champions Programme (SHCP), will allow 100 disadvantaged children aged between 14-19 to be trained as ‘Sexual Health Champions’. They will then lead peer-to-peer sessions for 2,000 more young people, while 40 young people who are deemed most at risk of sexual ill-health will receive one-to-one mentoring. This is material from THT that children will no doubt be encouraged to access:
GAY HATRED OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE AIDED AND ABETTED BY TESCO
When Tesco proudly states that it is pleased to have been invited to support World Pride 2012, may I cast the spotlight on a similar event held in London's 2006 Europride, when Sir Ian McKellen OBE and Sir Elton John CBE were its patrons and organisers? These same Stonewall champions of diversity may well be integral to World Pride 2012.
In 2006, the Independent on Sunday compiled an annual Pink List of the most influential gay and lesbians in Britain.
Ian McKellen topped the list ahead of singer Sir Elton John in second place. Since September 2008, he has been cruising, virtually unopposed, around British schools, subtly breaking down children's natural reserve towards unnatural behaviour, under the pretext that “we should be kind to each other.” What kind of kindness was it to read out James Kirkup's poem “The Love That Dares To Speak It’s Name” at a Secularist gathering in a London restaurant in 2008, by way of celebrating the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws? This obscene, pornographic poem of homosexual necrophilia, describing in graphic detail a Roman soldier pouring out his lust on the dead body of Christ, was designed to express his visceral hatred of God and Christians. He also demonstrates his hatred of boasting of ripping pages of the Bible – something he proudly confesses to doing whenever he finds one in a hotel room. (look at the video at the bottom of this page of the “comedian, George Carlin, mocking God). DoesTesco applaud this too?
HATRED OF PURITY CONDONED BY TESCO (Warning obscene language)
GAY PAEDOPHILIA ENDORSED BY TESCO
In 2010 the government created a new anti-paedophile database, but McKellen who is patron of the Little Theatre Guild, which represents more than 100 British theatres, said that the Government's new anti-paedophile database was unnecessary for theatres and that "there has never in the last 50 years been any hint of wrongdoing". However, theatre director, Rhys Young who once worked for the Wharf Theatre in Devizes (which is a member of Sir Ian's Little Theatre Guild) was jailed in 2008 for having sex with a 15-year-old boy. He was also jailed for a similar offence dating back to 1996.
Sir Elton John, who came second on this list, put on a show for Cherie Blair and VIPs at the Royal Albert Hall in 1999, in aid of Stonewall, in which he celebrated paedophilia. Six professional teen-age strippers wearing Cub Scout uniforms (for ages 7-11) stripped off their uniforms -- to the song, "It's a sin," by homosexual band, the Pet Shop Boys, and knelt before Elton John in obscene poses while grabbing their crotches.
A Home Office document published in 1998 by Bradford et al suggested reasonably that approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about 10% mixed (2nd para, p14)
And again, though I am not accusing Peter Tatchell of being a paedophile, his writing is bestrewn with evidence that he supports it. – no matter how much he vehemently denies this. Read your Tatchell.
GAY SUICIDE AND DRUGS PROMOTED BY TESCO
Third in this annual Pink List of the most influential gay and lesbians in Britain was Gary Frisch and Henry Badenhorst who founded the gay online dating agency Gaydar.com, which boasts more than six million subscribers worldwide, and apart from Tesco, is also a proud sponsor of London Pride. .
Gary Frisch committed suicide by leaping from the eighth floor of a block of flats in London, his blood full of ketamine, and shouting “whahee” as he leapt from the balcony.
“Gay singer Elton John revealed that a former lover committed suicide… The star said: “Years back I had a relationship, and I had absolutely no idea in the world he was going to do this… he threw himself under a truck.”
Matt Lucas, Little Britain comedian, who came 9th in this list in 2009, according to the Independent, ‘had been starring in Prick Up Your Ears at the Comedy Theatre, a sombre play about the suicide of the playwright Kenneth Halliwell, who killed himself after murdering his lover and fellow playwright Joe Orton. But the Little Britain star quit after his real-life former partner Kevin McGee was found hanging on Monday in his Edinburgh flat…”
We might also add the names of the many homosexuals, such as Kristian Digby and Kevin Greening, who have committed suicide or died as a result of dangerous sex experiments.
Even within the last few days we hear of Peter Roebuck: cricketer
GAY TYRANNY, OPPRESSION, DOMINANCE AND BONDAGE PROMOTED BY TESCO
Thrown in for good measure, the singer Boy George makes a regular appearance in London Pride. He served only four months of 15 month prison sentence for chaining a male escort to a wall and lashing him with a chain during a sex act in 2009. In this Youtube he believes that Christians should be silenced from making any comment or criticism of homosexual behaviour.
How soon before billboards and posters, proclaiming ‘SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY, GET OVER IT’ are placed in every street, every work place, school, sports club, and church telling us that even to feel uncomfortable with sodomy will qualify us to be forcibly made to attend a diversity course at the national headquarters of the homosexual lobby group, Stonewall in London: - as happened to a Bristol councillor, Chris Windows, when he expressed concern about gay (Sir) Ian McKellen proselytising homosexuality to Bristol schoolchildren ? relevant part of video starts at starts 2hrs 20:56 to 2hrs 28:45)
Clearly a disturbed minority, aided and abetted by our institutions, like Tesco are attempting to impose homosexuality on our children. In all these issues I will gladly go to prison rather than remain silent about this evil or have it forced upon me or my family. I want the right to choose what I teach my children and grandchildren - not be forced to teach them about fornication, adultery and sexual perversions. I will not teach this to my grandchildren, nor stand by and agree to someone else doing so, and sincerely hope that are still people left in Britain who think the same way.
Am I to understand that Gary Menzies of Tesco customer services has the last word?
“I have nothing further to add to the comments in my previous correspondence and our position on this matter remains unchanged.”
In the light of the above overwhelming evidence I ask that Tesco reconsiders its position on this matter?
Yours sincerely
David Skinner
Like most people I tend to regard what people do in private as their own business as long as it doesn't scare the horses, but whan it is spelled out exactly what they do, I find it rather disgusting. I find that the promotion is offensive and the picking on children and young people dangerous. The government and Prime Minister's support for the gay life style has stopped me voting Conservative again and I shall now never shop again at TESCO.
I post here an e-mail that I received today from Davis Skinner:
Dear Friends,
I recently wrote to ask that you protest against Tesco sponsoring London Pride 2011 and World Pride 2012.
I wish to thank all those who have responded and those who have written to me with advice and encouragement as to how to motivate more people to engage with issues that threaten us in these perplexing times. You may have seen the result of our letters in the Daily Mail:
Well done and God bless you all. However, Tesco is totally unrepentant, preferring instead to shift attention away from their evil and wicked sponsorship to the charities that they can more than afford. No doubt many of you may have received a Tesco letter such as this:
“Thank you for your email addressed to Andrew Higginson, our Chief Executive of Retailing Services, to which I have been asked to respond. ………We believe that everyone should be welcome at Tesco. This is reflected in the people we employ and the customers we serve. It is also reflected in the broad range of organisations and causes we support…………Last year we donated over £64 million to charities and good causes across the world. This amounted to 1.8 percent of pre-tax profits; nearly doubling our goal for 2010. ……Each year in the UK we select a national charity as our Charity of the Year which represents a cause our customers and staff care about……….. We are proud to support this wide range of charities and community initiatives and look forward to continuing to do so…… trust that I have clarified our position on this matter.
Kind Regards
Frances Hickling
Chief Executive’s Office”
Below is my letter in response, explaining that World Pride 2012 will be a moment of national shame, not pride. I would urge you to keep up the pressure on Tesco. Please write back to them in your own words or using part of my letter. Please make your voices heard before this freedom of speech is taken away, as the previous government has threatened to do, if it returns to power.
Contact details: philip.clarke@uk.tesco.co; or customer.service@tesco.co.uk;
or ceo.customerservice@tesco.co.uk; or cr.enquiries@uk.tesco.com For comments or questions on Tesco's Corporate Responsibility Report please contact Sir Richard Broadbent, Chairman, Tesco, PLC, Delamare Road, CheshuntEN8 9SL
also see:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
TO CUSTOMER SERVICES TESCO
To whoever it may concern
Dear Sir/Madam,
It is with regret that it seems to me that Tesco have come under the domination of OUTatTESCO and that though it might donate 1.8% of its gross profits to good causes (which for a company of this size is a modest amount; I personally donate 20% of my net income) this can in no way compensate for its sponsoring such shameful, dehumanising and degrading events as London Pride or World Pride 2012.
Perhaps I am being unfair when I say that I anticipate that your reply to my concerns might be something along the lines of, “Dear Sir/Madam, Tesco is striving to achieve a fairer, 21st century, multicultural society where there is great diversity of lifestyles ……… and that consequently this case is now closed.” And indeed, absolutely on queue I have just received such an answer that says, “I understand that you are unhappy about this situation and your comments have been duly noted. However, I have nothing further to add to the comments in my previous correspondence and our position on this matter remains unchanged.
Kind Regards
Gary Menzies
Customer Service Executive”
If that should be the case, I have to emphasise that the rapidly degenerating state of our once great Nation, being in as much danger, if not more, than the one it faced in World War 11, especially if the genuine concerns of the public are treated with such contempt, also remains unchanged. This issue will not go away.
I need to say at the outset that I wish in no way to attack those vulnerable and fragile men and women, boys and girls who possibly, through no choice - initially - of their own, have developed an emotional disorder or sexual addiction - not through genetics but through environmental influences - even sexual abuse - coupled maybe with temperamental weakness. These require our love, compassion and assistance - not condemnation. Indeed there but by the grace of God go I. However, with regard to the out-proud, militant and proselytising homosexuals, who, with the support of Tesco and the British government, have visited their cruelty on Peter and Hazelmary Bull, an elderly Christian couple, who run a bed and breakfast business in their own home, in Cornwall, I can only say that by using ambiguous laws, fear, oppression and tyranny, the government and Tesco have declared war on the people of Britain.
Peter and Hazelmary, like Tesco, are in the business of providing goods and services. But, unlike Tesco, they refused to bow to the dictats and bullying of gay pressure groups. At the beginning of 2011 they were informed that they had contravened the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) because they had discriminated against two gay men, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, by refusing them a double bed.
In addition to having to pay damages of £3600 to them, homosexuals then besieged their guesthouse with demands for double rooms, seemingly in a bid to destroy the business. Mrs Bull, 66, also received abusive and menacing phone calls, whilst her 71-year-old husband lay critically ill in hospital. Does Tesco support such behaviour?
I have generated a government e-petition, in support of Mr and Mrs Bull, asking for the repeal or drastic amendment to the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) which like the outlet of an effluent pipe, continues to pump its toxic waste into British society:
With homosexuals, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, there is no “live and let live”. They knew perfectly well how deeply offensive it would be to Mr and Mrs Bull to have anyone performing sodomy under their roof - whether married or unmarried, male or female. The men could have respected how they felt and gone elsewhere. They had a choice of many double beds in Cornwall catering for their “special tastes”, but no; the evidence points to their having been emboldened in their action by Stonewall, the homosexual bullying lobby group.
It is vital that we understand who generated the SORs, the purpose of which is to destroy traditional marriage and family life. This might sound and extreme claim, but read Peter Tatchell’s vision for the future just a few paragraphs further down.
The SORs were not handed down from heaven; neither are they based upon self-evident and universal truths. They were spawned in the imagination of Stonewall’s former chief executive, Angela Mason et al who is a commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the outfit responsible for hauling Mr and Mrs Bull through the courts). Not only was she responsible for setting up the Equality and Human Rights Commission (ECHR),she was responsible for overseeing the Sexual Orientation Regulations when she headed up the Women’s Equality Unit from 2003 to 2007. She is also a Marxist, lesbian, IVF mother, ex-member of anarchist group, the Angry Brigade (who in 1971 conducted a campaign of terror bombings in London). She also chairs the feminist organisation, the Fawcett Society (whose former chair, Dr Katherine Rake said “We want to transform the most intimate and private relations between women and men.”)
For Tesco to throw itself with such enthusiasm into this experiment in social engineering, by promoting sterile ‘different families’, who are unwilling to reproduce in the natural way, that come in all shapes and sizes, where there is no recognisable parentage, and where children are treated as commodities and trophies to be used as human shields to infiltrate our schools, sports clubs and scouting associations with gay propaganda, can only be described as an act of wanton anarchy – beyond anything we saw this Summer on the streets of London.
When law abiding members of the public like foster parents, Mr and Mrs Johns, the housing officer Adrian Smith, and a growing list that includes teachers, therapists, councillors, counsellors, magistrates, paediatricians, registrars, nurses, firemen, policemen and clergy - people from every walk of life - are publically humiliated, fined, forced out of their occupation, forced to close down their business, dragged through the courts, threatened with violence by gays, and compelled to pay for their own oppression through their taxes (for simply trying to halt this anarchy and to defend the values and morality of traditional marriage and the family) and presumably with the approval of Tesco, this is not likely to improve your ratings with the general public either.
To see the kind of vision for Britain that Tesco is promoting, let us have it from the horse’s mouth. Peter Tachtell in “Beyond Equality” writes:
“In many ways, our transcending of heterosexual mores is a positive and immensely liberating experience. Compared with most straights, queers tend to be more sexually adventurous with a wider repertoire of sexual behaviour, less bound by the strictures of traditional morality, and more experimental in terms of relationships. We don't need a marriage certificate to validate our partnerships.”
“Although getting rid of homophobic discrimination is a laudable aim, it doesn't go far enough. Ending anti-gay bias will not resolve all the problems faced by lesbian and gay people. Some of our difficulties arise not from homophobia, but from the more general eroto-phobic and sex-negative nature of contemporary culture.”
“We get equality, but at a price. The cost to our community is the surrender of our unique, distinctive queer identity. The unwritten social contract at the heart of law reform is that lesbians and gays will behave respectably and comply with the heterosexual moral agenda. No more cruising, orgies or sadomasochism!”
In “Teenage Sex-What Should Schools Teach Children?” he writes:
“Until very recent times, all sex education was overwhelmingly biased towards promoting heterosexuality, marriage, parenthood and traditional family life. Anything outside this exclusive framework was either ignored or condemned”……“This old-style monocultural sex moralism is now totally out of sync with our modern multicultural society where there is a great diversity of cultures and communities, lifestyles and love-lives.”…..” Nothing must be off limits”…..“Sex education, to be effective, needs to start at a very early age, beginning gently in the first year of primary school and gradually becoming more detailed and explicit at secondary level”……“The best way to persuade teenagers to adopt oral sex and mutual masturbation is by making them look and sound sexy.”
But Tatchell, in “Insignificant Other” wants to go beyond to something called the Civil Commitment Pact, where any kind of relationship is given social and legal recognition.
“For these reasons, I have suggested a new legal framework – Civil Commitment Pact. It would allow people to nominate as their next-of-kin and beneficiary any 'significant other' in their life. This could be a partner or lover, but it could also be a sister, carer, house-mate, favourite nephew or life-long best friend. “Any new partnership legislation should allow people to select from a menu of rights and responsibilities. This flexibility would enable them to devise a tailor-made partnership agreement suited to their own particular needs.”
It's clear to see where Tatchell is taking us with “any kind of relationship”.
I now draw your attention back to Tesco's World Pride 2012 sponsorship. Without doubt, as each year passes, and the gay lobby become more emboldened, this will become more extreme until it begins to resemble the obscene Folsom Street Fair in California which was described this year as being like “nothing in the world.. with 400,000 kinky friends spread out over 13 city blocks of adult entertainment”: BEFORE viewing these links, I apologies in advance and give a strong warning about the outrageous and highly explosive nature of this GayPride material.
TESCO PROMOTIONS : SCENES FROM LONDONANDMANCHESTER PRIDE (note man and his dog at 3min50 seconds) (note sex workers marching in parade)
GAY HEALTH AND SAFETY PROMOTED BY TESCO
The 1% of the population who identify themselves as gay or bi-sexual are responsible for almost 50% of sexually transmitted diseases.
The Pink News reported,“New figures from the body show that men who have sex with men and young adults are the most at-risk groups for infections.
The HPA said that in cases where sexual orientation was recorded, 64 per cent of new syphilis infections and 40 per cent of new gonorrhoea infections were found in gay or bisexual men.”
It also said,
“More than 100,000 people are expected to be living with HIV by next year, at an annual treatment cost of almost £1 billion. In 2010, 45 per cent of those diagnosed were gay or bisexual men.”
Other sponsors of London and World Pride are the Terrance Higgins Trust, supposedly an HIV and sexual health charity that has been granted £203,528 government funding to run a sex education programme in English schools and youth clubs. This outrageous programme, called the Sexual Health Champions Programme (SHCP), will allow 100 disadvantaged children aged between 14-19 to be trained as ‘Sexual Health Champions’. They will then lead peer-to-peer sessions for 2,000 more young people, while 40 young people who are deemed most at risk of sexual ill-health will receive one-to-one mentoring. This is material from THT that children will no doubt be encouraged to access:
GAY HATRED OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE AIDED AND ABETTED BY TESCO
When Tesco proudly states that it is pleased to have been invited to support World Pride 2012, may I cast the spotlight on a similar event held in London's 2006 Europride, when Sir Ian McKellen OBE and Sir Elton John CBE were its patrons and organisers? These same Stonewall champions of diversity may well be integral to World Pride 2012.
In 2006, the Independent on Sunday compiled an annual Pink List of the most influential gay and lesbians in Britain.
Ian McKellen topped the list ahead of singer Sir Elton John in second place. Since September 2008, he has been cruising, virtually unopposed, around British schools, subtly breaking down children's natural reserve towards unnatural behaviour, under the pretext that “we should be kind to each other.” What kind of kindness was it to read out James Kirkup's poem “The Love That Dares To Speak It’s Name” at a Secularist gathering in a London restaurant in 2008, by way of celebrating the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws? This obscene, pornographic poem of homosexual necrophilia, describing in graphic detail a Roman soldier pouring out his lust on the dead body of Christ, was designed to express his visceral hatred of God and Christians. He also demonstrates his hatred of boasting of ripping pages of the Bible – something he proudly confesses to doing whenever he finds one in a hotel room. (look at the video at the bottom of this page of the “comedian, George Carlin, mocking God). DoesTesco applaud this too?
HATRED OF PURITY CONDONED BY TESCO (Warning obscene language)
GAY PAEDOPHILIA ENDORSED BY TESCO
In 2010 the government created a new anti-paedophile database, but McKellen who is patron of the Little Theatre Guild, which represents more than 100 British theatres, said that the Government's new anti-paedophile database was unnecessary for theatres and that "there has never in the last 50 years been any hint of wrongdoing". However, theatre director, Rhys Young who once worked for the Wharf Theatre in Devizes (which is a member of Sir Ian's Little Theatre Guild) was jailed in 2008 for having sex with a 15-year-old boy. He was also jailed for a similar offence dating back to 1996.
Sir Elton John, who came second on this list, put on a show for Cherie Blair and VIPs at the Royal Albert Hall in 1999, in aid of Stonewall, in which he celebrated paedophilia. Six professional teen-age strippers wearing Cub Scout uniforms (for ages 7-11) stripped off their uniforms -- to the song, "It's a sin," by homosexual band, the Pet Shop Boys, and knelt before Elton John in obscene poses while grabbing their crotches.
A Home Office document published in 1998 by Bradford et al suggested reasonably that approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about 10% mixed (2nd para, p14)
And again, though I am not accusing Peter Tatchell of being a paedophile, his writing is bestrewn with evidence that he supports it. – no matter how much he vehemently denies this. Read your Tatchell.
GAY SUICIDE AND DRUGS PROMOTED BY TESCO
Third in this annual Pink List of the most influential gay and lesbians in Britain was Gary Frisch and Henry Badenhorst who founded the gay online dating agency Gaydar.com, which boasts more than six million subscribers worldwide, and apart from Tesco, is also a proud sponsor of London Pride. .
Gary Frisch committed suicide by leaping from the eighth floor of a block of flats in London, his blood full of ketamine, and shouting “whahee” as he leapt from the balcony.
“Gay singer Elton John revealed that a former lover committed suicide… The star said: “Years back I had a relationship, and I had absolutely no idea in the world he was going to do this… he threw himself under a truck.”
Matt Lucas, Little Britain comedian, who came 9th in this list in 2009, according to the Independent, ‘had been starring in Prick Up Your Ears at the Comedy Theatre, a sombre play about the suicide of the playwright Kenneth Halliwell, who killed himself after murdering his lover and fellow playwright Joe Orton. But the Little Britain star quit after his real-life former partner Kevin McGee was found hanging on Monday in his Edinburgh flat…”
We might also add the names of the many homosexuals, such as Kristian Digby and Kevin Greening, who have committed suicide or died as a result of dangerous sex experiments.
Even within the last few days we hear of Peter Roebuck: cricketer
GAY TYRANNY, OPPRESSION, DOMINANCE AND BONDAGE PROMOTED BY TESCO
Thrown in for good measure, the singer Boy George makes a regular appearance in London Pride. He served only four months of 15 month prison sentence for chaining a male escort to a wall and lashing him with a chain during a sex act in 2009. In this Youtube he believes that Christians should be silenced from making any comment or criticism of homosexual behaviour.
How soon before billboards and posters, proclaiming ‘SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY, GET OVER IT’ are placed in every street, every work place, school, sports club, and church telling us that even to feel uncomfortable with sodomy will qualify us to be forcibly made to attend a diversity course at the national headquarters of the homosexual lobby group, Stonewall in London: - as happened to a Bristol councillor, Chris Windows, when he expressed concern about gay (Sir) Ian McKellen proselytising homosexuality to Bristol schoolchildren ? relevant part of video starts at starts 2hrs 20:56 to 2hrs 28:45)
Clearly a disturbed minority, aided and abetted by our institutions, like Tesco are attempting to impose homosexuality on our children. In all these issues I will gladly go to prison rather than remain silent about this evil or have it forced upon me or my family. I want the right to choose what I teach my children and grandchildren - not be forced to teach them about fornication, adultery and sexual perversions. I will not teach this to my grandchildren, nor stand by and agree to someone else doing so, and sincerely hope that are still people left in Britain who think the same way.
Am I to understand that Gary Menzies of Tesco customer services has the last word?
“I have nothing further to add to the comments in my previous correspondence and our position on this matter remains unchanged.”
In the light of the above overwhelming evidence I ask that Tesco reconsiders its position on this matter?
Yours sincerely
David Skinner
Like most people I tend to regard what people do in private as their own business as long as it doesn't scare the horses, but whan it is spelled out exactly what they do, I find it rather disgusting. I find that the promotion is offensive and the picking on children and young people dangerous. The government and Prime Minister's support for the gay life style has stopped me voting Conservative again and I shall now never shop again at TESCO.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Fairness cuts both ways.
There is a link between the Occupy St Paul's movement (or stasis) benefit cheats and MPs expenses. The public are angry about cheating.
Here’s how the idea appeared in Ed Miliband’s party conference speech: “The banking crisis, MPs’ expenses, journalists hacking phones. From them all a something-for-nothing culture ... you know what your values are ... reward linked to effort. Something for something.”
St Paul put in simply in his letter to the Thessalonians: He who will not work; neither shall he eat.
And here’s how the same thought appeared in David Cameron’s speech: “Real fairness isn’t just about what the State spends. It’s about the link between what you put in and what you get out ... Under Labour they got something for nothing. With us they’ll only get something if they give something.”
The idea that underpinned both speeches was simple. Our demand for fairness is not a concept developed by philosophers, it is an observation made by scientists. The basis of human (and indeed, all animal) co-operation is reciprocation. You do something for me, I do something for you in return. We have evolved as beings who insist that others return our favors, that we get something for something.
And we get angry when we feel we are being deceived. There has been a lot of talk about public sympathy for the so-called “spirit of St Paul’s”. The idea is that voters share the protesters’ fury that a small group of bankers and chief executives seem to be paying themselves vast salaries out of all proportion to their contribution to the community. This is quite true. The fury is there. But it isn’t just about rich people. It is about anyone who gets something out without putting in the same amount. The feeling is not, therefore, a sort of new rising left-wing revolution against capitalism. That’s a misunderstanding. It is one part of the same populist anger that is commonly expressed about criminals, welfare fraudsters and bogus asylum seekers.
One of the things voters meant when they said that it was time for a change was that they (the decent hard-working people, and everyone thinks they are one of those) believed they were putting in much more than they were getting out and that this had to stop. They feel that the rewards that should be theirs are being given to others who don’t work as hard, and that the State gives them a bad deal, taking their tax and giving them poor services in return. Mr Cameron has to show that he knows that this is what he was elected to deal with. And Mr Miliband has to show that he can respond.
The power of the “no more something for nothing” message is obvious. Unfortunately, so are the political problems that come with it. We have evolved to co-operate, but also (as I have been posting) to cheat. Humans want, if they can, to see if they can get more out than they put in. And they want to stop others doing the same. As a result we have also evolved a strong aversion to cheating and a strong sense that we are being cheated. The demand for fairness may, therefore, be impossible to satisfy. The instinct that tells us that things are not fair may be as strong as the instinct to co-operate, and as ingrained.
This provides Mr Cameron with a serious difficulty. The very nature of our idea of fairness may mean that his policy response won’t seem fair enough. And the demand for fairness will persist even if it isn’t reasonable. As a Conservative, Mr Cameron also has the problem that he has to tackle unfair reward at the top, something voters think he doesn’t want to do, and which is tricky to achieve. But his big advantage is that when asked which party they most associate with tackling the something-for-nothing culture, voters overwhelmingly name the Tories.
That is the challenge for Mr Miliband. This weekend he associated himself with the St Paul’s protesters, swapping Tony Blair’s big tent for a campsite of small ones. He will not win the fairness battle by doing this, any more than by dividing companies into producers and predators. The issue of power and rewards for top people is important but only a part of fairness, a part where Labour is already relatively strong. It is on crime, welfare fraud, the deal for taxpayers and immigration, the other big fairness issues, that Mr Miliband needs to concentrate. To win on fairness he will have to get far tougher on these issues, and talk about little else. And this is something that runs counter to his instincts.
(adapted from Daniel Finklestein in the Times.)
Here’s how the idea appeared in Ed Miliband’s party conference speech: “The banking crisis, MPs’ expenses, journalists hacking phones. From them all a something-for-nothing culture ... you know what your values are ... reward linked to effort. Something for something.”
St Paul put in simply in his letter to the Thessalonians: He who will not work; neither shall he eat.
And here’s how the same thought appeared in David Cameron’s speech: “Real fairness isn’t just about what the State spends. It’s about the link between what you put in and what you get out ... Under Labour they got something for nothing. With us they’ll only get something if they give something.”
The idea that underpinned both speeches was simple. Our demand for fairness is not a concept developed by philosophers, it is an observation made by scientists. The basis of human (and indeed, all animal) co-operation is reciprocation. You do something for me, I do something for you in return. We have evolved as beings who insist that others return our favors, that we get something for something.
And we get angry when we feel we are being deceived. There has been a lot of talk about public sympathy for the so-called “spirit of St Paul’s”. The idea is that voters share the protesters’ fury that a small group of bankers and chief executives seem to be paying themselves vast salaries out of all proportion to their contribution to the community. This is quite true. The fury is there. But it isn’t just about rich people. It is about anyone who gets something out without putting in the same amount. The feeling is not, therefore, a sort of new rising left-wing revolution against capitalism. That’s a misunderstanding. It is one part of the same populist anger that is commonly expressed about criminals, welfare fraudsters and bogus asylum seekers.
One of the things voters meant when they said that it was time for a change was that they (the decent hard-working people, and everyone thinks they are one of those) believed they were putting in much more than they were getting out and that this had to stop. They feel that the rewards that should be theirs are being given to others who don’t work as hard, and that the State gives them a bad deal, taking their tax and giving them poor services in return. Mr Cameron has to show that he knows that this is what he was elected to deal with. And Mr Miliband has to show that he can respond.
The power of the “no more something for nothing” message is obvious. Unfortunately, so are the political problems that come with it. We have evolved to co-operate, but also (as I have been posting) to cheat. Humans want, if they can, to see if they can get more out than they put in. And they want to stop others doing the same. As a result we have also evolved a strong aversion to cheating and a strong sense that we are being cheated. The demand for fairness may, therefore, be impossible to satisfy. The instinct that tells us that things are not fair may be as strong as the instinct to co-operate, and as ingrained.
This provides Mr Cameron with a serious difficulty. The very nature of our idea of fairness may mean that his policy response won’t seem fair enough. And the demand for fairness will persist even if it isn’t reasonable. As a Conservative, Mr Cameron also has the problem that he has to tackle unfair reward at the top, something voters think he doesn’t want to do, and which is tricky to achieve. But his big advantage is that when asked which party they most associate with tackling the something-for-nothing culture, voters overwhelmingly name the Tories.
That is the challenge for Mr Miliband. This weekend he associated himself with the St Paul’s protesters, swapping Tony Blair’s big tent for a campsite of small ones. He will not win the fairness battle by doing this, any more than by dividing companies into producers and predators. The issue of power and rewards for top people is important but only a part of fairness, a part where Labour is already relatively strong. It is on crime, welfare fraud, the deal for taxpayers and immigration, the other big fairness issues, that Mr Miliband needs to concentrate. To win on fairness he will have to get far tougher on these issues, and talk about little else. And this is something that runs counter to his instincts.
(adapted from Daniel Finklestein in the Times.)
More cheating: Bernie Bribes
My son works in Formula 1 and despite the recession it remains one of the most profitable businesses in the world. It is controled by Bernie Ecclestone, a tiny little man with grey hair and a very tall ex-wife.
Allegations of bribery are being aired in a German court today. The allegations come as Mr Ecclestone takes the stand in Germany to give evidence in the criminal trial against Dr Gribkowsky. The case is running in parallel with civil action being taken in the UK. The documents allege Mr Ecclestone paid a bribe to ensure he retained control of F1 after its 2006 sale to CVC Partners. Mr Ecclestone has previously claimed it was to stop false allegations of his tax affairs being reported to HM Revenue & Customs. It is alleged that it was Mr Ecclestone who initiated the payment of bribes, offering to open an account in Singapore containing $80m to influence the sale of F1. The document suggests Gerhard Gribkowsky, the German investment banker on trial in Germany, turned down the $80m preferring to set up a series of consultancy agreements to receive the funds.
Here is what it is suggested. First a $66m payment was made by German bank Bayern Landesbank to Mr Ecclestone and his family trust. The two entities then paid Dr Gribkowsky, the Bayern investment banker who ran the sale, $44m as the alleged bribe. According to legal papers, the alleged bribes resulted in Bayern's 47pc in F1 being sold to CVC for $814m rather than the $2.8bn it was really worth. The material undervaluation is alleged to have lost previous owners of F1 Constantin Medien roughly $171m in a profit share agreement.
Mr Ecclestone has claimed he was strong-armed into making the payments under pressure from Dr Gribkowsky. Court documents dispute that view. "Mr Ecclestone's allegation that the payments related to threats…rather than to the disposal of the BayernLB holding is untrue." Instead the case brought by German media group Constantin Medien alleges Mr Ecclestone was attempting to retain control of the sport. "It is to be inferred Mr Ecclestone's motivation for promoting the acquisition by CVC was to safeguard his practical control of the Formula 1 companies."
England is the home of the best automotive engineering in the world, supplying men and material for most forms of autosport. It is sad to think that such engineering excellence is being corrupted by businessmen who do not know right from wrong.
And to think that Tony Blair was content with only £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone for keeping cigarette advertising on British Television. How many lives did that cost?
Allegations of bribery are being aired in a German court today. The allegations come as Mr Ecclestone takes the stand in Germany to give evidence in the criminal trial against Dr Gribkowsky. The case is running in parallel with civil action being taken in the UK. The documents allege Mr Ecclestone paid a bribe to ensure he retained control of F1 after its 2006 sale to CVC Partners. Mr Ecclestone has previously claimed it was to stop false allegations of his tax affairs being reported to HM Revenue & Customs. It is alleged that it was Mr Ecclestone who initiated the payment of bribes, offering to open an account in Singapore containing $80m to influence the sale of F1. The document suggests Gerhard Gribkowsky, the German investment banker on trial in Germany, turned down the $80m preferring to set up a series of consultancy agreements to receive the funds.
Here is what it is suggested. First a $66m payment was made by German bank Bayern Landesbank to Mr Ecclestone and his family trust. The two entities then paid Dr Gribkowsky, the Bayern investment banker who ran the sale, $44m as the alleged bribe. According to legal papers, the alleged bribes resulted in Bayern's 47pc in F1 being sold to CVC for $814m rather than the $2.8bn it was really worth. The material undervaluation is alleged to have lost previous owners of F1 Constantin Medien roughly $171m in a profit share agreement.
Mr Ecclestone has claimed he was strong-armed into making the payments under pressure from Dr Gribkowsky. Court documents dispute that view. "Mr Ecclestone's allegation that the payments related to threats…rather than to the disposal of the BayernLB holding is untrue." Instead the case brought by German media group Constantin Medien alleges Mr Ecclestone was attempting to retain control of the sport. "It is to be inferred Mr Ecclestone's motivation for promoting the acquisition by CVC was to safeguard his practical control of the Formula 1 companies."
England is the home of the best automotive engineering in the world, supplying men and material for most forms of autosport. It is sad to think that such engineering excellence is being corrupted by businessmen who do not know right from wrong.
And to think that Tony Blair was content with only £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone for keeping cigarette advertising on British Television. How many lives did that cost?
Cheating scales the Olympian heights.
I recently wrote about cheating. Acceptance of cheating seems to be culturally determined. A few years in a British University apparently strains it out of you.
The Japanese Olympus Company makes fine cameras , but I have been more involved with their being a major manufacturer of microscopes and endoscopes. I was shocked that they appointed a British CEO, Michael Woodford, in October and then sacked him two weeks later. The reason given was that he 'failed to understand the company's management style or Japanese culture'. This seemed unlikely since he had worked for the company for 30 years and had been the CEO of the European branch of the company.
Woodford, however, maintained that it was for questioning the firm's 2007 £1bn takeover of Reading-based medical equipment firm Gyrus and the purchase of three other smaller companies. He said it was because he had uncovered a series of huge and questionable payments, and then campaigned for the company to come clean.
Today, Olympus admitted to fraud, dating back to the 1980s, after bowing to mounting pressure to explain a series of baffling transactions that have put the future of the firm in doubt. With the news, Woodford called for the Olympus board to resign, and said he would like to return to manage the company should shareholders wish to reinstate him.
A subdued Olympus President Shuichi Takayama, who staunchly defended the deals when he took over from former President, Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, last month, told a press conference: 'I was absolutely unaware of the facts I am now explaining to you. The previous presentations were mistaken. (a euphemism for lies)' He blamed his predecessor Kikukawa, who quit as president and chairman on October 26, Vice-President Hisashi Mori and internal auditor Hideo Yamada for the cover-up. And he revealed he was now considering initiating criminal complaints against them.
He said Olympus had discovered funds relating to its purchase of Gyrus, which involved a huge advisory fee of £427 million as well as payment of £480 million for three tiny domestic firms, were used to hide losses on the securities investments.
The investment in the three domestic firms was largely written off a few months after the deals closed. It means Olympus, its directors and accountants are now open to possible criminal charges for suspected accounting fraud and shareholder suits.
Ryosuke Okazaki, chief investment officer at ITC Investment Partners, said: 'This is very serious. Olympus admitted it has made false entries to cover its losses for 20 years. 'All people involved in this over 20 years would be responsible. There is a serious danger that Olympus shares will be de-listed. The future of the company is extremely dark.' Olympus' announcement sent its shares tumbling 29 per cent to a 16-year low. The company has lost a staggering 70 per cent of its value, or $6 billion, since it fired Woodford, who had been one of the few foreign CEOs of a Japanese blue chip company.
Olympus said it discovered the cover-up while working with an independent panel set up last week to investigate the deals. Kikukawa and Mori confessed to their roles on Monday night, Takayama said. Mori was sacked earlier in the day while the internal auditor offered to resign. Olympus said it would decide whether others were responsible after further investigation. The independent panel's head, retired Supreme Court justice Tatsuo Kainaka, said his team may recommend criminal charges in its report, which will be completed early next month. Takayama said he believed the loss-postponement scheme had started before the 1990s. The firm said it had funnelled money related to the acquisitions through various funds and other measures to defer posting the unspecified losses, similar to practices seen after Japan's bubble economy of soaring asset prices burst in 1990.
While Olympus did not offer concrete details, Takayama said he believed the company may have initiated the loss-postponing scheme when its earnings had taken a drastic turn for the worse, possibly during a period of yen strength. Such a scheme may have involved creating a fund or special purpose vehicle to buy battered securities at book value, getting them off Olympus' balance sheet. The cost to fund that scheme would have ballooned over time.
The people no-one seems to be apologizing to are Olympus's competitors; other manufacturers of cameras, endoscopes and microscopes, who may have suffered losses by Olympus taking up unfair market positions.
Olympus's fraud seems to have been a reaction to Japan's stagflation. Now that Europe and America have entered a similar economic landscape, can we expect to see similar frauds in Europe and America. We need to be vigilant.
The Japanese Olympus Company makes fine cameras , but I have been more involved with their being a major manufacturer of microscopes and endoscopes. I was shocked that they appointed a British CEO, Michael Woodford, in October and then sacked him two weeks later. The reason given was that he 'failed to understand the company's management style or Japanese culture'. This seemed unlikely since he had worked for the company for 30 years and had been the CEO of the European branch of the company.
Woodford, however, maintained that it was for questioning the firm's 2007 £1bn takeover of Reading-based medical equipment firm Gyrus and the purchase of three other smaller companies. He said it was because he had uncovered a series of huge and questionable payments, and then campaigned for the company to come clean.
Today, Olympus admitted to fraud, dating back to the 1980s, after bowing to mounting pressure to explain a series of baffling transactions that have put the future of the firm in doubt. With the news, Woodford called for the Olympus board to resign, and said he would like to return to manage the company should shareholders wish to reinstate him.
A subdued Olympus President Shuichi Takayama, who staunchly defended the deals when he took over from former President, Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, last month, told a press conference: 'I was absolutely unaware of the facts I am now explaining to you. The previous presentations were mistaken. (a euphemism for lies)' He blamed his predecessor Kikukawa, who quit as president and chairman on October 26, Vice-President Hisashi Mori and internal auditor Hideo Yamada for the cover-up. And he revealed he was now considering initiating criminal complaints against them.
He said Olympus had discovered funds relating to its purchase of Gyrus, which involved a huge advisory fee of £427 million as well as payment of £480 million for three tiny domestic firms, were used to hide losses on the securities investments.
The investment in the three domestic firms was largely written off a few months after the deals closed. It means Olympus, its directors and accountants are now open to possible criminal charges for suspected accounting fraud and shareholder suits.
Ryosuke Okazaki, chief investment officer at ITC Investment Partners, said: 'This is very serious. Olympus admitted it has made false entries to cover its losses for 20 years. 'All people involved in this over 20 years would be responsible. There is a serious danger that Olympus shares will be de-listed. The future of the company is extremely dark.' Olympus' announcement sent its shares tumbling 29 per cent to a 16-year low. The company has lost a staggering 70 per cent of its value, or $6 billion, since it fired Woodford, who had been one of the few foreign CEOs of a Japanese blue chip company.
Olympus said it discovered the cover-up while working with an independent panel set up last week to investigate the deals. Kikukawa and Mori confessed to their roles on Monday night, Takayama said. Mori was sacked earlier in the day while the internal auditor offered to resign. Olympus said it would decide whether others were responsible after further investigation. The independent panel's head, retired Supreme Court justice Tatsuo Kainaka, said his team may recommend criminal charges in its report, which will be completed early next month. Takayama said he believed the loss-postponement scheme had started before the 1990s. The firm said it had funnelled money related to the acquisitions through various funds and other measures to defer posting the unspecified losses, similar to practices seen after Japan's bubble economy of soaring asset prices burst in 1990.
While Olympus did not offer concrete details, Takayama said he believed the company may have initiated the loss-postponing scheme when its earnings had taken a drastic turn for the worse, possibly during a period of yen strength. Such a scheme may have involved creating a fund or special purpose vehicle to buy battered securities at book value, getting them off Olympus' balance sheet. The cost to fund that scheme would have ballooned over time.
The people no-one seems to be apologizing to are Olympus's competitors; other manufacturers of cameras, endoscopes and microscopes, who may have suffered losses by Olympus taking up unfair market positions.
Olympus's fraud seems to have been a reaction to Japan's stagflation. Now that Europe and America have entered a similar economic landscape, can we expect to see similar frauds in Europe and America. We need to be vigilant.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
More on the St Paul's Occupation
Giles Fraser, one of the liberal clerics who has resigned over the anarchist sit-in in the grounds of St Paul's, calls himself a Christian Socialist, but he is more socialist than Christian. He believes in women Bishops, gay marriage and does not believe in life after death. He also, until his resignation, lived in luxury in central London.
I dare say these people have their place, but it is not within a Christian church. I wonder if he might try a refugee camp in the horn of Africa or Darfur? One could at least respect that.
Christianity is about trusting in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of one's own personal sins and receiving eternal life as a free gift from God. It is not about 'working your passage' by what you do in this life, but for those who think it is, 'working your passage' does not involve smells and bells and magic spells. Scripture tells us that it is impossible to work you own passage but for those who would like to try you might think about selling all your goods and giving to the poor, caring for those who are sick or imprisoned, feeding the hungry and providing fresh water to the thirsty. That doesn't mean going to coffee mornings and sitting on committees, but getting your hands dirty. It still won't be good enough, but at least the world will respect you.
I dare say these people have their place, but it is not within a Christian church. I wonder if he might try a refugee camp in the horn of Africa or Darfur? One could at least respect that.
Christianity is about trusting in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of one's own personal sins and receiving eternal life as a free gift from God. It is not about 'working your passage' by what you do in this life, but for those who think it is, 'working your passage' does not involve smells and bells and magic spells. Scripture tells us that it is impossible to work you own passage but for those who would like to try you might think about selling all your goods and giving to the poor, caring for those who are sick or imprisoned, feeding the hungry and providing fresh water to the thirsty. That doesn't mean going to coffee mornings and sitting on committees, but getting your hands dirty. It still won't be good enough, but at least the world will respect you.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Occupying St Paul's
I have visited St Paul's Cathedral for the inauguration of my friend the Bishop of Swindon, who is a fellow immunologist. I must say it is a magnificent building and concert venue. Designed by Sir Christopher Wren, a fellow blood transfusion specialist and scientist, it is of architectural and historical importance. I believe it ought to be preserved for the nation on those grounds.
I am not in favor of a national church and would vote for the disestablishment of the Church of England if I had the chance. My parents baptised me into the C of E without my consent and I have seldom taken part in any of their services. There are, of course, many true Christians in the C of E.
The Occupy London sit in is different from those elsewhere in the world in that it has got itself involved with Establishment Churchmen in a way that it hasn't elsewhere. In some way the protest has got itself conflated with the story in the gospels of Jesus overturning, with some violence, the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple.
From what I have seen of the London Occupiers, they are nicely-spoken, reasonable, middle class youngsters - mostly unemployed - often hirsute, left-wing and scruffy, but non-violent and naive who feel aggrieved at the way that the economy is shaping up.
The funding of St Paul's is from entry fees (it makes £16,000 a day) and grants from institutions in the City of London, which is immensely wealthy. I have no doubt that a disproportionate amount of money is garnered in the City from less than admirable sources. Insider trading undoubtedly exists and the whole system is geared to favor those already rich. Gambling, which is a national pastime, is where big money is made. So I have some sympathy with the protesters, though I doubt whether their methods will do more than raise the debate. I must say that I have no remedy for the lack of justice within finance, though my own personal wealth has grown by cautious investment over the past 30 years. I must be one of the richest 1% on the planet if not in the UK alone.
Most of us do not quibble if some one is rich having worked hard, though inherited wealth (if it implies that someone does not have to work) or wealth attained by trivial work, criminality or deceit does raise our ire. We are also moved by extreme poverty, unless it is brought on by idleness or refusal to work. Many of these well spoken young people outside St Paul's would be better employed working in a refugee camp in the horn of Africa - I would certainly give a donation for their travel out there.
The same could be said for those churchmen who side with the protesters. I think we have too many church buildings. The church is the gathered body of believers and a church building may favor that gathering, but it doesn't have to be owned by the church or be particularly beautiful. I have met in town halls, school classrooms, basketball courts and in the open air. The main purpose of a church meeting is to preach the gospel so as to make, mature and mobilize disciples. I really don't see much of that going on at St Paul's.
I am not in favor of a national church and would vote for the disestablishment of the Church of England if I had the chance. My parents baptised me into the C of E without my consent and I have seldom taken part in any of their services. There are, of course, many true Christians in the C of E.
The Occupy London sit in is different from those elsewhere in the world in that it has got itself involved with Establishment Churchmen in a way that it hasn't elsewhere. In some way the protest has got itself conflated with the story in the gospels of Jesus overturning, with some violence, the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple.
From what I have seen of the London Occupiers, they are nicely-spoken, reasonable, middle class youngsters - mostly unemployed - often hirsute, left-wing and scruffy, but non-violent and naive who feel aggrieved at the way that the economy is shaping up.
The funding of St Paul's is from entry fees (it makes £16,000 a day) and grants from institutions in the City of London, which is immensely wealthy. I have no doubt that a disproportionate amount of money is garnered in the City from less than admirable sources. Insider trading undoubtedly exists and the whole system is geared to favor those already rich. Gambling, which is a national pastime, is where big money is made. So I have some sympathy with the protesters, though I doubt whether their methods will do more than raise the debate. I must say that I have no remedy for the lack of justice within finance, though my own personal wealth has grown by cautious investment over the past 30 years. I must be one of the richest 1% on the planet if not in the UK alone.
Most of us do not quibble if some one is rich having worked hard, though inherited wealth (if it implies that someone does not have to work) or wealth attained by trivial work, criminality or deceit does raise our ire. We are also moved by extreme poverty, unless it is brought on by idleness or refusal to work. Many of these well spoken young people outside St Paul's would be better employed working in a refugee camp in the horn of Africa - I would certainly give a donation for their travel out there.
The same could be said for those churchmen who side with the protesters. I think we have too many church buildings. The church is the gathered body of believers and a church building may favor that gathering, but it doesn't have to be owned by the church or be particularly beautiful. I have met in town halls, school classrooms, basketball courts and in the open air. The main purpose of a church meeting is to preach the gospel so as to make, mature and mobilize disciples. I really don't see much of that going on at St Paul's.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Camped out with Occupy London
A Daily Mail undercover reporter has infiltrated the St Paul's camp in London. Here is his report:
In the 48 hours I spend at the camp, I discover that procrastination, contradiction and confusion are pretty much par for the course — and absolutely no one asks about my reason for being there. My fellow protesters are too busy posing for the world’s media, being interviewed by film crews and radio stations from around the world, and loving the attention.
Looking around, my camp comrades are more student-union common-room than dreadlocked Swampies. Earnest-looking graduates and undergraduates for the most part, their numbers are bolstered by foreign activists, some of whom have come straight from Central Casting: the Spaniard with beard and beret, and the three young German students in army surplus boots and parkas.
A key activity is sitting around smoking joints and knocking back lager. Complaints circulate about drunk people urinating on the steps of the cathedral and on each other’s tents. It becomes clear that undisciplined behaviour is affecting the camp’s image and driving some of its residents away. Among the professional protesters, those from the anarchist group Anonymous form a tight knot of tents and are distinguishable by the plastic Guy Fawkes masks they carry and sometimes wear to obscure their faces.
The only uniformity in the camp is that just about everyone, when not inhaling marijuana, smokes cigarettes (roll-ups, of course). The mornings are a cacophony of hacking coughs.
Everyone looks exhausted. For starters, the cathedral bells peel every 15 minutes, and buses roar past throughout the night. The City starts work early and finishes late. At 6.30am on Tuesday I am roused by a passer-by yelling: 'Get up, you lazy bastards.’ Not that they do.
The 12th meeting of the General Assembly of the London wing of the international revolution against capitalism is not going smoothly. The first item on the agenda relates to changing the banner that fronts the sprawling camp in the piazza surrounding London’s St Paul’s Cathedral. It currently reads 'Capitalism is crisis’, but some demonstrators want it changed to: 'We are the 99 per cent.’ Unfortunately, there is a snag. Someone has nicked the banner.
If anyone asks why I am here, my cover story is that I am demonstrating against the banks, having had to close a business as a result of their unwillingness to lend. But in the 48 hours I spend at the camp, I discover that procrastination, contradiction and confusion are pretty much par for the course — and absolutely no one asks about my reason for being there. My fellow protesters are too busy posing for the world’s media, being interviewed by film crews and radio stations from around the world, and loving the attention.
Even after living cheek-by-jowl with the demonstrators for two days and nights, what they stand for and what they hope to achieve by occupying this half-acre of paving slabs remains an utter mystery to me. They purport to be running their campaign to fight against capitalism. But what I encountered was a disparate group of freelance travelling protesters with little or no discernible philosophy and a penchant for petty squabbles. 'Our response to systemic failure is not to propose a new system, but to start making one,’ wrote members of the camp in one of a number of articles published in The Guardian, the protesters’ newspaper of choice. 'We are providing an example of how the 99 per cent might move forward.’
Therein lies the problem because, as examples go, theirs is a deeply flawed one. This point is driven home to me on Wednesday at 6.45am, as I stand in the drizzle outside my tent. At the previous evening’s meeting, we had been encouraged to join a march in support of electricians who are on strike at nearby Blackfriars Bridge.
Six people including myself turn up. Even after one of our number, a wispy-bearded white Muslim convert, tours the site with a megaphone shouting 'Wake up. This is not a picnic’, the contingent barely reaches double figures. It’s pretty pathetic given that the previous evening, the 100-strong crowd at the meeting had applauded speakers stressing the importance of spreading the anti-capitalist message to the working classes.
That said, they had also given the thumbs up to holding a mass meditation session on the grounds that 'a load of guys sitting round in silence would look really cool from a photo-opportunity perspective’. Such apathy is all the more depressing given that while I am there, accusations about the dedication and motives of the protesters is a hot topic in the world outside.
On Tuesday, the press revealed that only one in ten of the 200-odd tents is occupied overnight. Evidence of this came from a thermal imaging camera deployed from a police helicopter. The daytime-only brigade make a mockery of the slogan posted on camp tents and buildings, which declares: 'All day, all week, we’ll sleep on London’s freezing streets. Solidarity!’ But predictably, my comrades are outraged by this 'slander’, claiming modern tents are so well-insulated they would conceal any occupants. I nod, while wondering why, if that’s so, I nearly froze the previous night.
From what I see on the ground, I’d concur with the thermal imaging —this is a part-time camp with many part-time protesters. My tent is touching five others, three of which I never see anyone enter or leave. Many tell me they attend London universities, dividing their time between their studies and the protest. Hardly surprising, then, that much of the business of the camp has the whiff of student politics. Twenty-something and predominantly female, the middle-class accents of the 'facilitators’ — yes, that’s what they call themselves — fill the piazza as they do 'shout-outs’ for people to join caucuses for women and ethnic minorities, and for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LBGT) support groups. Alongside them in equal number are foreign activists living in London. Smaller in number but perhaps most vocal of all are the professional activists. Several tell me they have just returned from the Dale Farm traveller evictions. Others are veterans of protest camps dating back decades.
At the meeting on Monday, one activist complains that his partner was almost assaulted yesterday by a drunk. 'And I saw the camp’s kitchen staff being harassed by someone who was drunk,’ he says. 'I was also harassed by someone who was drunk. I have reason to be a little bit afraid for our safety.’ His words are warmly applauded, as are those of a facilitator who reveals there have been complaints about boozed-up people urinating on the cathedral steps and on tents. 'No one should pee on the church or the tents,’ she instructs. 'That is just not OK. We have big issues with peeing. A bag of s*** was also put in the bin. That is also not OK.’
Another protester implores those who want to block a proposed ban on drink and drugs to remember why they are there. 'Recreational drinking isn’t something we should passionately support — this is a movement trying to overthrow capitalism,’ she says, adding that anyone wanting to have a drink or 'do a few lines’ (presumably of cocaine) could go off-site.
A member of the so-called Tranquillity Team, a roster of protesters who spend the nights trying to quell trouble, says they have been rushed off their feet dealing with problems, and that people carousing on the cathedral steps have been keeping everyone awake until dawn. Meanwhile, a member of the finance team implores people to stop asking for money that has been donated to the camp. 'We won’t give out money for cigarettes or booze,’ he says, clearly exasperated. 'Please don’t even bother asking.’ Another man takes to the microphone and says it’s not just the drink and drugs that have given the protesters a bad name. 'People have been going out to buy Starbucks coffee,’ he says. 'I would like to see people not displaying Tesco stuff and Coca-Cola because that s*** is as bad as alcohol.’
After an hour-long debate, a hard core of protesters, many of whom have been watching the meeting while drinking and rolling joints, attempt to block the motion. While the General Assembly aims to reach decisions unanimously, the facilitator invokes a rule that says important decisions can be implemented with 75 per cent support. In the end, the drink and drugs ban is carried — 100 vote for and 15 against. Of course, in the world that the protesters inhabit, that doesn’t mean anything. Once again, no decision is reached.
Later that evening, a man I saw drinking earlier in the day is taken to hospital by ambulance. The following morning, another protester is still so drunk he descends the steps of St Paul’s on his bottom as tourists watch in bemused horror.
In PR terms, the location is clearly a disaster, and it is one that, in private, the protesters are deeply concerned about. 'Support is ebbing away,’ says one. 'And with Remembrance Sunday coming up, it is only going to get worse.’ Another tells me his group of a dozen protesters would be happy to leave if some way of packing up without losing face could be found. Others are preparing for a lengthy legal battle, busily convincing themselves that the cathedral’s volte-face is because the Church is in thrall to the City’s money men. And, anyway, the chances of reaching any agreement are unlikely, not without a lengthy meeting or ten. So the protesters continue to labour under the illusion that this is the start of a global revolution, ending each General Assembly with news of how the movement is progressing around the world. But with each chime of St Paul’s august bells, confidence in this haphazard and strangely disingenuous protest grows more hollow.
In the 48 hours I spend at the camp, I discover that procrastination, contradiction and confusion are pretty much par for the course — and absolutely no one asks about my reason for being there. My fellow protesters are too busy posing for the world’s media, being interviewed by film crews and radio stations from around the world, and loving the attention.
Looking around, my camp comrades are more student-union common-room than dreadlocked Swampies. Earnest-looking graduates and undergraduates for the most part, their numbers are bolstered by foreign activists, some of whom have come straight from Central Casting: the Spaniard with beard and beret, and the three young German students in army surplus boots and parkas.
A key activity is sitting around smoking joints and knocking back lager. Complaints circulate about drunk people urinating on the steps of the cathedral and on each other’s tents. It becomes clear that undisciplined behaviour is affecting the camp’s image and driving some of its residents away. Among the professional protesters, those from the anarchist group Anonymous form a tight knot of tents and are distinguishable by the plastic Guy Fawkes masks they carry and sometimes wear to obscure their faces.
The only uniformity in the camp is that just about everyone, when not inhaling marijuana, smokes cigarettes (roll-ups, of course). The mornings are a cacophony of hacking coughs.
Everyone looks exhausted. For starters, the cathedral bells peel every 15 minutes, and buses roar past throughout the night. The City starts work early and finishes late. At 6.30am on Tuesday I am roused by a passer-by yelling: 'Get up, you lazy bastards.’ Not that they do.
The 12th meeting of the General Assembly of the London wing of the international revolution against capitalism is not going smoothly. The first item on the agenda relates to changing the banner that fronts the sprawling camp in the piazza surrounding London’s St Paul’s Cathedral. It currently reads 'Capitalism is crisis’, but some demonstrators want it changed to: 'We are the 99 per cent.’ Unfortunately, there is a snag. Someone has nicked the banner.
If anyone asks why I am here, my cover story is that I am demonstrating against the banks, having had to close a business as a result of their unwillingness to lend. But in the 48 hours I spend at the camp, I discover that procrastination, contradiction and confusion are pretty much par for the course — and absolutely no one asks about my reason for being there. My fellow protesters are too busy posing for the world’s media, being interviewed by film crews and radio stations from around the world, and loving the attention.
Even after living cheek-by-jowl with the demonstrators for two days and nights, what they stand for and what they hope to achieve by occupying this half-acre of paving slabs remains an utter mystery to me. They purport to be running their campaign to fight against capitalism. But what I encountered was a disparate group of freelance travelling protesters with little or no discernible philosophy and a penchant for petty squabbles. 'Our response to systemic failure is not to propose a new system, but to start making one,’ wrote members of the camp in one of a number of articles published in The Guardian, the protesters’ newspaper of choice. 'We are providing an example of how the 99 per cent might move forward.’
Therein lies the problem because, as examples go, theirs is a deeply flawed one. This point is driven home to me on Wednesday at 6.45am, as I stand in the drizzle outside my tent. At the previous evening’s meeting, we had been encouraged to join a march in support of electricians who are on strike at nearby Blackfriars Bridge.
Six people including myself turn up. Even after one of our number, a wispy-bearded white Muslim convert, tours the site with a megaphone shouting 'Wake up. This is not a picnic’, the contingent barely reaches double figures. It’s pretty pathetic given that the previous evening, the 100-strong crowd at the meeting had applauded speakers stressing the importance of spreading the anti-capitalist message to the working classes.
That said, they had also given the thumbs up to holding a mass meditation session on the grounds that 'a load of guys sitting round in silence would look really cool from a photo-opportunity perspective’. Such apathy is all the more depressing given that while I am there, accusations about the dedication and motives of the protesters is a hot topic in the world outside.
On Tuesday, the press revealed that only one in ten of the 200-odd tents is occupied overnight. Evidence of this came from a thermal imaging camera deployed from a police helicopter. The daytime-only brigade make a mockery of the slogan posted on camp tents and buildings, which declares: 'All day, all week, we’ll sleep on London’s freezing streets. Solidarity!’ But predictably, my comrades are outraged by this 'slander’, claiming modern tents are so well-insulated they would conceal any occupants. I nod, while wondering why, if that’s so, I nearly froze the previous night.
From what I see on the ground, I’d concur with the thermal imaging —this is a part-time camp with many part-time protesters. My tent is touching five others, three of which I never see anyone enter or leave. Many tell me they attend London universities, dividing their time between their studies and the protest. Hardly surprising, then, that much of the business of the camp has the whiff of student politics. Twenty-something and predominantly female, the middle-class accents of the 'facilitators’ — yes, that’s what they call themselves — fill the piazza as they do 'shout-outs’ for people to join caucuses for women and ethnic minorities, and for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LBGT) support groups. Alongside them in equal number are foreign activists living in London. Smaller in number but perhaps most vocal of all are the professional activists. Several tell me they have just returned from the Dale Farm traveller evictions. Others are veterans of protest camps dating back decades.
At the meeting on Monday, one activist complains that his partner was almost assaulted yesterday by a drunk. 'And I saw the camp’s kitchen staff being harassed by someone who was drunk,’ he says. 'I was also harassed by someone who was drunk. I have reason to be a little bit afraid for our safety.’ His words are warmly applauded, as are those of a facilitator who reveals there have been complaints about boozed-up people urinating on the cathedral steps and on tents. 'No one should pee on the church or the tents,’ she instructs. 'That is just not OK. We have big issues with peeing. A bag of s*** was also put in the bin. That is also not OK.’
Another protester implores those who want to block a proposed ban on drink and drugs to remember why they are there. 'Recreational drinking isn’t something we should passionately support — this is a movement trying to overthrow capitalism,’ she says, adding that anyone wanting to have a drink or 'do a few lines’ (presumably of cocaine) could go off-site.
A member of the so-called Tranquillity Team, a roster of protesters who spend the nights trying to quell trouble, says they have been rushed off their feet dealing with problems, and that people carousing on the cathedral steps have been keeping everyone awake until dawn. Meanwhile, a member of the finance team implores people to stop asking for money that has been donated to the camp. 'We won’t give out money for cigarettes or booze,’ he says, clearly exasperated. 'Please don’t even bother asking.’ Another man takes to the microphone and says it’s not just the drink and drugs that have given the protesters a bad name. 'People have been going out to buy Starbucks coffee,’ he says. 'I would like to see people not displaying Tesco stuff and Coca-Cola because that s*** is as bad as alcohol.’
After an hour-long debate, a hard core of protesters, many of whom have been watching the meeting while drinking and rolling joints, attempt to block the motion. While the General Assembly aims to reach decisions unanimously, the facilitator invokes a rule that says important decisions can be implemented with 75 per cent support. In the end, the drink and drugs ban is carried — 100 vote for and 15 against. Of course, in the world that the protesters inhabit, that doesn’t mean anything. Once again, no decision is reached.
Later that evening, a man I saw drinking earlier in the day is taken to hospital by ambulance. The following morning, another protester is still so drunk he descends the steps of St Paul’s on his bottom as tourists watch in bemused horror.
In PR terms, the location is clearly a disaster, and it is one that, in private, the protesters are deeply concerned about. 'Support is ebbing away,’ says one. 'And with Remembrance Sunday coming up, it is only going to get worse.’ Another tells me his group of a dozen protesters would be happy to leave if some way of packing up without losing face could be found. Others are preparing for a lengthy legal battle, busily convincing themselves that the cathedral’s volte-face is because the Church is in thrall to the City’s money men. And, anyway, the chances of reaching any agreement are unlikely, not without a lengthy meeting or ten. So the protesters continue to labour under the illusion that this is the start of a global revolution, ending each General Assembly with news of how the movement is progressing around the world. But with each chime of St Paul’s august bells, confidence in this haphazard and strangely disingenuous protest grows more hollow.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Occupy latest news
An interesting article by George Carey, the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury on the St Paul's debacle in today's Telegraph.
The inevitable resignation of the Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s, Giles Fraser, via the predictable medium of Twitter, is a sad day for one of our great national churches. But the departure of this able man, and now the planned reopening of the cathedral, should at least bring to an end the hand-wringing and posturing of the past two weeks. My paramount concern throughout has been that the reputation of Christianity is being damaged by the episode, and, more widely, that the possibility of fruitful and peaceful protest has been brought into disrepute.
The Blitz only closed St Paul’s for four days. By contrast, the Occupy London Stock Exchange protesters, camped outside Wren’s masterpiece, managed to put it out of business for a week. It has been a debacle that should prompt urgent public debate both within the Church of England, and throughout society at large.
For countless others, though, not least in the churches, this was a hopeful sign that peaceful protests could indeed take place at a time when so many civil liberties have been eroded. Furthermore, it demonstrated that the Church is willing to play a sympathetic role in the lives of young people who are drawn to a movement calling for economic justice.
Like many others in the Church, I have a great deal of sympathy for the raw idealism of the protesters. Their contention that the banks have not paid an equitable price for the damage caused, in part, by their reckless lending and profiteering strikes a powerful chord.
However, after their initial welcome to Occupy, the cathedral authorities then seemed to lose their nerve. In daily-changing news reports, the story see-sawed between a public debate about the merits or otherwise of the protest, the drama of internal disputes at St Paul’s over lost income from tourists, and the ill-defined health, safety and fire concerns that caused it to close its doors to worshippers.
One moment the church was reclaiming a valuable role in hosting public protest and scrutiny, the next it was looking in turns like the temple which Jesus cleansed, or the officious risk-averse ’elf ’n safety bureaucracy of urban legend. How could the dean and chapter at St Paul’s have let themselves get into such a position?
And what of the protesters themselves in this sorry story? Their intransigence, once the cathedral stopped welcoming them with open arms and began to plead with them to leave, did them no favours. Ironically, they started off fulsomely thanking the Church for allowing them to stay, but then repaid that generosity by refusing to leave when asked.
At a time when secularists are striving to drive Christian voices from public life with strident campaigns to abolish church schools and council prayers, and when workers can be suspended for offering to say a prayer for colleagues or for wearing a cross, it seems that on the doorstep of St Paul’s, of all places, yet another blow has been struck against Christian worshippers. In this case, “anarchist” protesters threatened the freedom to worship – one of our most basic and hard-fought-for rights – by forcing the cathedral authorities to halt public access.
But surely the protesters and the Church were, by one measure, on the same side? How could Occupy be unaware of the immense contribution of all the churches to justice and peace through international development and social services? The St Paul’s Institute alone has been addressing precisely the issues Occupy is raising.
Yet the very fact that they are prepared to continue their own protest at the expense of Christian worship in one of our greatest cathedrals surely gives the lie to the protesters’ claim that they represent 99 per cent of society. Furthermore, their determination to engage in an open-ended campaign in the churchyard is opportunistic and cynical. If their protest is truly against the tax evaders of the City and reckless banking practices, why are they not protesting at Canary Wharf, or on the thresholds of the banks themselves?
As the story developed, thermal images of empty tents seemed to illustrate the hollow nature of the protest movement. The emerging picture of spoilt middle-class children returning home at night for a shower and a warm bed begged questions about their commitment to their cause. It also seemed to suggest that the cathedral authorities in their initial welcome had been duped.
And what was the cause anyway? “This is what democracy looks like,” claimed Occupy’s opening statement. It explained that it was engaged in a process of public assemblies in a democratic process. But it is making up its demands as it goes along – truly rebels without a cause.
In some senses this is what our society now looks like. We are all protesters, even if we don’t take to the streets. We all have an inchoate sense that something is wrong and we have any number of culprits to blame – from Europe, to immigrants, to the banks, to politicians and media barons. Public distrust of the institutions of a civil society has reached an all-time high as the performance of some bankers, public servants and even recently some sections of our media has sunk to the lowest depths after waves of recent scandal.
And where are the ideas for restoring public trust and rebuilding our now fragile democracy? We are divided as never before, not into one per cent of the very rich, versus 99 per cent of the not-so-rich, as the protesters would have us believe, but into many factions and separate communities. Gone is any sense of an overarching narrative to form our identity as a nation. We have effectively forgotten who we are because we have rejected the very faith and heritage that set us on our way as a great country.
The story of the St Paul’s encampment, with its empty tents and hollowed-out protest, together with the uncertain note sounded by the dean and chapter, is simply a parable for our times.
It would be a tragedy now if, by the mismanagement of the St Paul’s authorities and the self-indulgence of the protesters, the right of peaceful protest and the urgency of widespread public debate became the subject of even greater cynicism and apathy. This opportunity to rebuild our ailing public life around gospel values of public service, self-restraint, equality, hard work and charitable concern for the poor, must not be squandered.
Protest has always been with us, particularly in times of crisis, and the churches have often been at the centre of popular movements and campaigns. In the past, the churchyard of St Paul’s was a well-known scene of public preaching which was often political in nature.
It should not be forgotten that this week is not the first time that St Paul’s has played an ambivalent and even wrongful role in the politics of protest. In the 16th century, a Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall, publicly burned copies of Tyndale’s New Testament at St Paul’s Cross. Tyndale’s was one of the first translations of the Bible into the vernacular, and became the basis of the influential King James Bible, whose 400th anniversary we are celebrating this year.
I’m not convinced that the Occupy protesters were aware of the history of St Paul’s when they chose the churchyard for their encampment. Denied room at nearby Paternoster Square, they were pushed back to St Paul’s, where Giles Fraser offered them a warm welcome and preached a sermon that they saw as favourable to their anti-capitalist agenda. For many people, Fraser’s intervention struck a dissonant note. Rather than entreating the protesters to move on, he asked the police to leave the steps of St Paul’s and declared to the cameras that the protest was peaceful.
The inevitable resignation of the Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s, Giles Fraser, via the predictable medium of Twitter, is a sad day for one of our great national churches. But the departure of this able man, and now the planned reopening of the cathedral, should at least bring to an end the hand-wringing and posturing of the past two weeks. My paramount concern throughout has been that the reputation of Christianity is being damaged by the episode, and, more widely, that the possibility of fruitful and peaceful protest has been brought into disrepute.
The Blitz only closed St Paul’s for four days. By contrast, the Occupy London Stock Exchange protesters, camped outside Wren’s masterpiece, managed to put it out of business for a week. It has been a debacle that should prompt urgent public debate both within the Church of England, and throughout society at large.
For countless others, though, not least in the churches, this was a hopeful sign that peaceful protests could indeed take place at a time when so many civil liberties have been eroded. Furthermore, it demonstrated that the Church is willing to play a sympathetic role in the lives of young people who are drawn to a movement calling for economic justice.
Like many others in the Church, I have a great deal of sympathy for the raw idealism of the protesters. Their contention that the banks have not paid an equitable price for the damage caused, in part, by their reckless lending and profiteering strikes a powerful chord.
However, after their initial welcome to Occupy, the cathedral authorities then seemed to lose their nerve. In daily-changing news reports, the story see-sawed between a public debate about the merits or otherwise of the protest, the drama of internal disputes at St Paul’s over lost income from tourists, and the ill-defined health, safety and fire concerns that caused it to close its doors to worshippers.
One moment the church was reclaiming a valuable role in hosting public protest and scrutiny, the next it was looking in turns like the temple which Jesus cleansed, or the officious risk-averse ’elf ’n safety bureaucracy of urban legend. How could the dean and chapter at St Paul’s have let themselves get into such a position?
And what of the protesters themselves in this sorry story? Their intransigence, once the cathedral stopped welcoming them with open arms and began to plead with them to leave, did them no favours. Ironically, they started off fulsomely thanking the Church for allowing them to stay, but then repaid that generosity by refusing to leave when asked.
At a time when secularists are striving to drive Christian voices from public life with strident campaigns to abolish church schools and council prayers, and when workers can be suspended for offering to say a prayer for colleagues or for wearing a cross, it seems that on the doorstep of St Paul’s, of all places, yet another blow has been struck against Christian worshippers. In this case, “anarchist” protesters threatened the freedom to worship – one of our most basic and hard-fought-for rights – by forcing the cathedral authorities to halt public access.
But surely the protesters and the Church were, by one measure, on the same side? How could Occupy be unaware of the immense contribution of all the churches to justice and peace through international development and social services? The St Paul’s Institute alone has been addressing precisely the issues Occupy is raising.
Yet the very fact that they are prepared to continue their own protest at the expense of Christian worship in one of our greatest cathedrals surely gives the lie to the protesters’ claim that they represent 99 per cent of society. Furthermore, their determination to engage in an open-ended campaign in the churchyard is opportunistic and cynical. If their protest is truly against the tax evaders of the City and reckless banking practices, why are they not protesting at Canary Wharf, or on the thresholds of the banks themselves?
As the story developed, thermal images of empty tents seemed to illustrate the hollow nature of the protest movement. The emerging picture of spoilt middle-class children returning home at night for a shower and a warm bed begged questions about their commitment to their cause. It also seemed to suggest that the cathedral authorities in their initial welcome had been duped.
And what was the cause anyway? “This is what democracy looks like,” claimed Occupy’s opening statement. It explained that it was engaged in a process of public assemblies in a democratic process. But it is making up its demands as it goes along – truly rebels without a cause.
In some senses this is what our society now looks like. We are all protesters, even if we don’t take to the streets. We all have an inchoate sense that something is wrong and we have any number of culprits to blame – from Europe, to immigrants, to the banks, to politicians and media barons. Public distrust of the institutions of a civil society has reached an all-time high as the performance of some bankers, public servants and even recently some sections of our media has sunk to the lowest depths after waves of recent scandal.
And where are the ideas for restoring public trust and rebuilding our now fragile democracy? We are divided as never before, not into one per cent of the very rich, versus 99 per cent of the not-so-rich, as the protesters would have us believe, but into many factions and separate communities. Gone is any sense of an overarching narrative to form our identity as a nation. We have effectively forgotten who we are because we have rejected the very faith and heritage that set us on our way as a great country.
The story of the St Paul’s encampment, with its empty tents and hollowed-out protest, together with the uncertain note sounded by the dean and chapter, is simply a parable for our times.
It would be a tragedy now if, by the mismanagement of the St Paul’s authorities and the self-indulgence of the protesters, the right of peaceful protest and the urgency of widespread public debate became the subject of even greater cynicism and apathy. This opportunity to rebuild our ailing public life around gospel values of public service, self-restraint, equality, hard work and charitable concern for the poor, must not be squandered.
Protest has always been with us, particularly in times of crisis, and the churches have often been at the centre of popular movements and campaigns. In the past, the churchyard of St Paul’s was a well-known scene of public preaching which was often political in nature.
It should not be forgotten that this week is not the first time that St Paul’s has played an ambivalent and even wrongful role in the politics of protest. In the 16th century, a Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall, publicly burned copies of Tyndale’s New Testament at St Paul’s Cross. Tyndale’s was one of the first translations of the Bible into the vernacular, and became the basis of the influential King James Bible, whose 400th anniversary we are celebrating this year.
I’m not convinced that the Occupy protesters were aware of the history of St Paul’s when they chose the churchyard for their encampment. Denied room at nearby Paternoster Square, they were pushed back to St Paul’s, where Giles Fraser offered them a warm welcome and preached a sermon that they saw as favourable to their anti-capitalist agenda. For many people, Fraser’s intervention struck a dissonant note. Rather than entreating the protesters to move on, he asked the police to leave the steps of St Paul’s and declared to the cameras that the protest was peaceful.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
More on Occupy
Protesters at Occupy London are now complaining about the media attention they are getting. They want a little privacy. Easy to get. Go home.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
More on Occupy
Apparently the Occupy London lot outside St Paul's Cathedral go home to mummy for a nice cup of hot chocolate now the cold evenings are setting in. Infra-red cameras have shown that 90% of the tents are unoccupied during the early hours. One 'protester' even claimed that he had to go home at night to run his internet business. Some anti-capitalist!
Free speech
Dorset gardener fired 'over anti fox hunting views'
A Dorset man was dismissed from his job at a garden centre because of his anti fox hunting beliefs, an employment tribunal has heard. Joe Hashman, 43, from Shaftesbury was fired from Orchard Park, Gillingham, after he was a witness in two hunting prosecutions, the hearing was told. The centre had told Mr Hashman the vegetable patch he was working was being cut. But he claims he was sacked after clashing with a manager over protests.
Mr Hashman told the Southampton tribunal the owners employed "hunt supporter" Andrew Prater, who he had seen during hunt protests. In July 2009, Mr Hashman was a witness for a prosecution of two landowners charged under the Hunting Act 2004. He wrote about this on his internet blog as well as criticisms of the Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Show for its "hunting influences".
Mr Prater died in an accident at this show. Mr Hashman was asked not to return to work on the day of the funeral on 3 September 2009, the tribunal heard. Two days previously, he had been a witness for another court case in Scarborough involving the celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson-Wright. Mr Hashman said: "I believe now that my involvement in relation to hunting issues and ultimately my philosophical belief was the reason for my dismissal."
It is just as outrageous for someone to be dismissed for their private views on fox-hunting as it was for someone to be demoted for their private views on gay marriage. What has happened to free speech in this country?
A Dorset man was dismissed from his job at a garden centre because of his anti fox hunting beliefs, an employment tribunal has heard. Joe Hashman, 43, from Shaftesbury was fired from Orchard Park, Gillingham, after he was a witness in two hunting prosecutions, the hearing was told. The centre had told Mr Hashman the vegetable patch he was working was being cut. But he claims he was sacked after clashing with a manager over protests.
Mr Hashman told the Southampton tribunal the owners employed "hunt supporter" Andrew Prater, who he had seen during hunt protests. In July 2009, Mr Hashman was a witness for a prosecution of two landowners charged under the Hunting Act 2004. He wrote about this on his internet blog as well as criticisms of the Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Show for its "hunting influences".
Mr Prater died in an accident at this show. Mr Hashman was asked not to return to work on the day of the funeral on 3 September 2009, the tribunal heard. Two days previously, he had been a witness for another court case in Scarborough involving the celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson-Wright. Mr Hashman said: "I believe now that my involvement in relation to hunting issues and ultimately my philosophical belief was the reason for my dismissal."
It is just as outrageous for someone to be dismissed for their private views on fox-hunting as it was for someone to be demoted for their private views on gay marriage. What has happened to free speech in this country?
Monday, October 24, 2011
Latest on the riots
More figures are coming out about the London riots in August. It appears that gang culture was not the overriding factor with only 1 in 5 convicted being a gang member. One in 7 of all those convicted was born outside the UK.
The biggest factor seems to have been membership of an underclass of criminals with 40% haveing been convicted at least twice before. A third of young people convicted had been excluded (expelled) from school during the previous year. Two thirds of young people had 'special educational needs' though what this means is dubious since one third of all pupils fall into this category.
The biggest factor seems to have been membership of an underclass of criminals with 40% haveing been convicted at least twice before. A third of young people convicted had been excluded (expelled) from school during the previous year. Two thirds of young people had 'special educational needs' though what this means is dubious since one third of all pupils fall into this category.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Occupy
The worldwide "Occupy" movement has its representation in London on the steps of St Paul's Cathedral. The Guardian sent a reporter out to interview them to see what they want. The truth is that they don't know what they want except something different. They are a self-important, self-indulgent, over-privileged groups of spoiled children. A jogger passing by shouted, "Get a job." at them and that is probably an impossibility; who would employ them? But there are probably a large number of refugee camps in Africa who would be glad to have their free labor.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Abuse of the law in the UK
I thought I would give my opinions on several instances of the tolerance of lawlessness that have been apparent in Britain lately. We live in a free society where every opportunity is given for citizens to express their dissent. First we live in a parliamentary democracy with universal suffrage for all over the age of 18. Even convicted felons are allowed a vote unless they are actually in prison. In addition citizens of the Irish Republic are allowed to vote in British elections and postal votes are available for those who are away from where they are registered to vote. There is no doubt that the voting system is widely abused, but it is believed that the balance between liberty and oppression is best maintained at this level.
In addition to the vote for both local and national government, the right to make peaceful demonstrations against particular decisions by government is strictly preserved.
The Dale Farm incident
Currently police and bailiffs are removing Irish Travelers from an illegally occupied site in Essex. Polls show that this move is supported by 87% of the general public. This is a dispute that has been going on for ten years. It is complicated. Irish Travelers have been living in the UK for more than 200 years and probably had their origin from the time when they arrived as laborers to build the canals. They have refused to integrate with the general population. They have jumped on the 'race' bandwagon so that racist legislation applies to them and laws introduced by the last Labour government require each local authority to provide sites where they may park their caravans on a temporary bases.
Their lifestyle is not compatible with the modern day. Children do not receive a proper education and healthcare is poor. However, the lifestyle is supplemented by a good deal of criminality and fraud. Generally, Irish travelers make bad neighbors and a lot of illegal squatting occurs leaving local authorities with huge clean-up bills.
The Dale Farm dispute has been going on for 10 years. There is a legitimate site on Dale farm, but in order to extend this the travelers bought some adjacent agricultural land and have set up a further 51 dwellings on it. They paid agricultural prices for land without planning permission and were unable to obtain planning permission for residential properties. Planning permission would have increased the value of the land by at least tenfold.
The travelers do in fact have luxury properties in Ireland but choose to live in Britain largely off state benefits and cash-in-hand laboring jobs for which they pay no income tax. They do this in England because Irish laws have made it impossible for them to do so over there. After 10 years of going through the courts the local authority have finally got permission to break up the travelers' camp and have done this despite the violent opposition of 'rentamob'.
Second example. The streets of central London are overrun with child beggars. These children are of Romanian Gypsy origin and are taking advantage of lax EU legislation which has allowed them into the UK. Begging is illegal in Britain but each of these children who target the Muslim community, are making £300 a day from begging. Romanians are not Muslims but they dress up as if they were. They are virtual slaves and are being run by organized crime families in Romania. These families live in huge villas in Romania and drive luxury cars. They are also being used for child benefit scams. One family was found to have defrauded the British taxpayer of £800,000 in a single year. Under British law these children should be taken into social care and their parents imprisoned, but hardly anything has happened for fear of transgressing laws about racism.
Third example. The streets of Southall in west London have seen a great increase in the construction of garden sheds. These sheds at the bottom people's gardens house up to 6 illegal immigrants who pay exorbitant rents to unscrupulous and criminal landlords. The local councils have a duty to prosecute but are unlikely to do so because the local councillors comprise the very same criminals who own the garden sheds. They think they are fireproof.
These are three examples of where a crazy softness has beset British society. We voted for a conservative government in the hope that these abuses would end. Next time more people will vote for a more Nationalistic government.
In addition to the vote for both local and national government, the right to make peaceful demonstrations against particular decisions by government is strictly preserved.
The Dale Farm incident
Currently police and bailiffs are removing Irish Travelers from an illegally occupied site in Essex. Polls show that this move is supported by 87% of the general public. This is a dispute that has been going on for ten years. It is complicated. Irish Travelers have been living in the UK for more than 200 years and probably had their origin from the time when they arrived as laborers to build the canals. They have refused to integrate with the general population. They have jumped on the 'race' bandwagon so that racist legislation applies to them and laws introduced by the last Labour government require each local authority to provide sites where they may park their caravans on a temporary bases.
Their lifestyle is not compatible with the modern day. Children do not receive a proper education and healthcare is poor. However, the lifestyle is supplemented by a good deal of criminality and fraud. Generally, Irish travelers make bad neighbors and a lot of illegal squatting occurs leaving local authorities with huge clean-up bills.
The Dale Farm dispute has been going on for 10 years. There is a legitimate site on Dale farm, but in order to extend this the travelers bought some adjacent agricultural land and have set up a further 51 dwellings on it. They paid agricultural prices for land without planning permission and were unable to obtain planning permission for residential properties. Planning permission would have increased the value of the land by at least tenfold.
The travelers do in fact have luxury properties in Ireland but choose to live in Britain largely off state benefits and cash-in-hand laboring jobs for which they pay no income tax. They do this in England because Irish laws have made it impossible for them to do so over there. After 10 years of going through the courts the local authority have finally got permission to break up the travelers' camp and have done this despite the violent opposition of 'rentamob'.
Second example. The streets of central London are overrun with child beggars. These children are of Romanian Gypsy origin and are taking advantage of lax EU legislation which has allowed them into the UK. Begging is illegal in Britain but each of these children who target the Muslim community, are making £300 a day from begging. Romanians are not Muslims but they dress up as if they were. They are virtual slaves and are being run by organized crime families in Romania. These families live in huge villas in Romania and drive luxury cars. They are also being used for child benefit scams. One family was found to have defrauded the British taxpayer of £800,000 in a single year. Under British law these children should be taken into social care and their parents imprisoned, but hardly anything has happened for fear of transgressing laws about racism.
Third example. The streets of Southall in west London have seen a great increase in the construction of garden sheds. These sheds at the bottom people's gardens house up to 6 illegal immigrants who pay exorbitant rents to unscrupulous and criminal landlords. The local councils have a duty to prosecute but are unlikely to do so because the local councillors comprise the very same criminals who own the garden sheds. They think they are fireproof.
These are three examples of where a crazy softness has beset British society. We voted for a conservative government in the hope that these abuses would end. Next time more people will vote for a more Nationalistic government.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Royal Wooton Bassett
In a moving ceremony this afternoon the small town of Wooton Bassett received the Letters patent to be able to prefix the town's name with "Royal". This was only the third occasion that this has happened and the first time for over 100 years.
The other two towns are Royal Tunbridge Wells and Royal Leamingston Spa which are both watering holes favored by previous monarchs. For Tunbridge Wells the prefix "Royal" dates to 1909, when King Edward VII granted the town its official "Royal" title to celebrate its popularity over the years amongst members of the royal family. It is a Spa town, incorporated as a municipal borough in 1888. In 1909 Edward VII allowed the prefix "Royal" in recognition of the town's connections with the royal family since the Stuart dynasty. The Borough of Royal Tunbridge Wells was abolished in April 1974, and charter trustees were briefly appointed to preserve the mayoralty of the town. The trustees, who were themselves abolished in December 1974, obtained letters patent reauthorising the prefix "Royal" to the name of the town
Leamington was granted a "Royal" prefix in 1838 by Queen Victoria, who visited the town as a Princess in 1830 and as Queen in 1858. There are other Royal counties and boroughs recognized because there are Royal palaces in them. The following places have been explicitly granted or confirmed the use of the title "royal" by royal charter, letters patent or similar instrument issued by the monarch. Berkshire, Greenwich, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston on Thames, Windsor. Since 1926 the entitlement to the title "royal borough" has been strictly enforced. Devizes in Wiltshire, which had previously used the title without sanction was forced to end the practice.
The title "regis" (of the king) has also been granted to one town - Bognor. Tourism gradually took off in Bognor during the 19th century, with the area being chosen as an ideal location for King George V to convalesce during 1929, the King and Queen actually staying at Craigwell House in Aldwick. As a result, the King was asked to bestow the suffix "Regis" ("of the King") on "Bognor". The petition was presented to Lord Stamfordham, the King's Private Secretary, who in turn delivered it to the King. King George supposedly replied, "Oh, bugger Bognor." Lord Stamfordham then went back to the petitioners and told them, "the King has been graciously pleased to grant your request. There are 13 other Regis-es in the UK, but it generally signifies nothing more than that the Crown originally owned the manor. Among them are Houghton Regis in Bedfordshire, Salcombe Regis in Devon, Bere Regis and Lyme Regis in Dorset, Milton Regis in Kent, Beeston Regis in Norfolk, Grafton Regis in Northamptonshire, Brompton Regis in Somerset, Newton Regis in Warwickshire and Rowley Regis in the West Midlands.
The prefix King---- signifies something similar and there are more of these: Kingham, Kingsclere, King's Heath, Kingskerswell, Kings Langley, King's Lynn, King's Norton, King's Sutton, Kings Tamerton, Kingstanding, Kingsteignton, Kingston by Ferring, Kingston upon Hull, Kingston upon Thames, Kingswinford Winterborne, Kingston, Kingsbridge, Kingsbury Episcopi, Kingsdon, Kingston Seymour, Kingston St Mary, Kingstone, Kingweston, Kingswood, Queen Adelaide, Cambridgeshire, Queen Camel, Queen Charlton, Queen's Park, Princes Risborough, and Princetown.
Royal Wooton Bassett is different. It is the closest town to the RAF base at Lyneham. In 2005 a Hercules aircraft from Lyneham was lost in Iraq with all its crew. As they were repatriated people from the town spontaneously lined the streets to honor the servicemen as their hearses drove through the town. After 2007 servicemen killed in Afghanistan were routinely repatriated through Lyneham and again the town stood in silence as the funeral corteges drove through. Eventually several thousand people lined the streets, distributing flowers on the funeral vehicles. This was a spontaneous gesture of respect and honor for our servicemen. They performed this ceremony for 365 soldiers, marines, sailors and airman. It is for this act of honor that they have been honored. In future repatriation flights will be through a different RAF base at Brize Norton.
The other two towns are Royal Tunbridge Wells and Royal Leamingston Spa which are both watering holes favored by previous monarchs. For Tunbridge Wells the prefix "Royal" dates to 1909, when King Edward VII granted the town its official "Royal" title to celebrate its popularity over the years amongst members of the royal family. It is a Spa town, incorporated as a municipal borough in 1888. In 1909 Edward VII allowed the prefix "Royal" in recognition of the town's connections with the royal family since the Stuart dynasty. The Borough of Royal Tunbridge Wells was abolished in April 1974, and charter trustees were briefly appointed to preserve the mayoralty of the town. The trustees, who were themselves abolished in December 1974, obtained letters patent reauthorising the prefix "Royal" to the name of the town
Leamington was granted a "Royal" prefix in 1838 by Queen Victoria, who visited the town as a Princess in 1830 and as Queen in 1858. There are other Royal counties and boroughs recognized because there are Royal palaces in them. The following places have been explicitly granted or confirmed the use of the title "royal" by royal charter, letters patent or similar instrument issued by the monarch. Berkshire, Greenwich, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston on Thames, Windsor. Since 1926 the entitlement to the title "royal borough" has been strictly enforced. Devizes in Wiltshire, which had previously used the title without sanction was forced to end the practice.
The title "regis" (of the king) has also been granted to one town - Bognor. Tourism gradually took off in Bognor during the 19th century, with the area being chosen as an ideal location for King George V to convalesce during 1929, the King and Queen actually staying at Craigwell House in Aldwick. As a result, the King was asked to bestow the suffix "Regis" ("of the King") on "Bognor". The petition was presented to Lord Stamfordham, the King's Private Secretary, who in turn delivered it to the King. King George supposedly replied, "Oh, bugger Bognor." Lord Stamfordham then went back to the petitioners and told them, "the King has been graciously pleased to grant your request. There are 13 other Regis-es in the UK, but it generally signifies nothing more than that the Crown originally owned the manor. Among them are Houghton Regis in Bedfordshire, Salcombe Regis in Devon, Bere Regis and Lyme Regis in Dorset, Milton Regis in Kent, Beeston Regis in Norfolk, Grafton Regis in Northamptonshire, Brompton Regis in Somerset, Newton Regis in Warwickshire and Rowley Regis in the West Midlands.
The prefix King---- signifies something similar and there are more of these: Kingham, Kingsclere, King's Heath, Kingskerswell, Kings Langley, King's Lynn, King's Norton, King's Sutton, Kings Tamerton, Kingstanding, Kingsteignton, Kingston by Ferring, Kingston upon Hull, Kingston upon Thames, Kingswinford Winterborne, Kingston, Kingsbridge, Kingsbury Episcopi, Kingsdon, Kingston Seymour, Kingston St Mary, Kingstone, Kingweston, Kingswood, Queen Adelaide, Cambridgeshire, Queen Camel, Queen Charlton, Queen's Park, Princes Risborough, and Princetown.
Royal Wooton Bassett is different. It is the closest town to the RAF base at Lyneham. In 2005 a Hercules aircraft from Lyneham was lost in Iraq with all its crew. As they were repatriated people from the town spontaneously lined the streets to honor the servicemen as their hearses drove through the town. After 2007 servicemen killed in Afghanistan were routinely repatriated through Lyneham and again the town stood in silence as the funeral corteges drove through. Eventually several thousand people lined the streets, distributing flowers on the funeral vehicles. This was a spontaneous gesture of respect and honor for our servicemen. They performed this ceremony for 365 soldiers, marines, sailors and airman. It is for this act of honor that they have been honored. In future repatriation flights will be through a different RAF base at Brize Norton.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Interlude
There is something delightful in watching a craftsman at work. Whether it is a bricklayer, a carpenter or a lady knitting, it is a delightful and satisfying experience.
In the old days of monochrome TV when the BBC had a monopoly, in the gaps betwen programs, instead of adverts and trailers we used to have 'interludes'. The most popular of these interludes was watching a pair of hands form a pot on a potter's wheel. I found out this week that the hands belonged to the grandfather of my brother-in-law. He used to work at Watt's gallery in Compton in Surrey.
In the old days of monochrome TV when the BBC had a monopoly, in the gaps betwen programs, instead of adverts and trailers we used to have 'interludes'. The most popular of these interludes was watching a pair of hands form a pot on a potter's wheel. I found out this week that the hands belonged to the grandfather of my brother-in-law. He used to work at Watt's gallery in Compton in Surrey.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Laziness in the workplace
You would never think there was a recession going on. It has taken 4 days to get a technician out ro fix my cable connexion for my TV. Even when I threatened to go to their competitor, I couldn't budge them. They offered me £25 off my next bill for the lost connexion, but nothing would induce them to improve their service. I would pay an extra £25 to get the job done quickly. I wonder whether Richard Branson knows what is being done in his name.
You would think that the threat of competition would induce them to improve, but a great depression has set upon the country. No-one seems to have any initiative. Everyone is beset by the attitude that nothing can be done. I remember the same attitude beset the country in the 1970s before Mrs Thatcher came to power.
We see it in hospitals. Despite the perception that things are going downhill, no-one seems to recognize that it is in their hands to change things. Recently I heard that bone marrow trephines were being booked at a famous hospital at one hourly intervals. The dostor doing the operations can do them in 15 minutes, but the times are dictated by the nurse who doesn't start work until 9-30 am and can therefor only accommodate 3 trephines in her working day. What does the nurse do? Does she lay up the trolley? No. Does she do the trephine biopsy? No. Does she collect the specimens for the lab? No. Does she consent the patient? No. What doe she do? Apparently she holds the patient's hand during the procedure and whispers encouraging words.
Do you remember when elevators in department stores had elevator operators who called out what departments were on each floor? Before they realized that customers could actually read. They used to call it overmanning.
If the nurse could actually do something then they might do 10 trephines in a morning, but instead patinets and doctors spend hours wasting their time.
One of the reasons that people enjoy being self employed is the ability to set their own pace for work. It is immensely frustrating to be at the behest of laziness in colleagues.
You would think that the threat of competition would induce them to improve, but a great depression has set upon the country. No-one seems to have any initiative. Everyone is beset by the attitude that nothing can be done. I remember the same attitude beset the country in the 1970s before Mrs Thatcher came to power.
We see it in hospitals. Despite the perception that things are going downhill, no-one seems to recognize that it is in their hands to change things. Recently I heard that bone marrow trephines were being booked at a famous hospital at one hourly intervals. The dostor doing the operations can do them in 15 minutes, but the times are dictated by the nurse who doesn't start work until 9-30 am and can therefor only accommodate 3 trephines in her working day. What does the nurse do? Does she lay up the trolley? No. Does she do the trephine biopsy? No. Does she collect the specimens for the lab? No. Does she consent the patient? No. What doe she do? Apparently she holds the patient's hand during the procedure and whispers encouraging words.
Do you remember when elevators in department stores had elevator operators who called out what departments were on each floor? Before they realized that customers could actually read. They used to call it overmanning.
If the nurse could actually do something then they might do 10 trephines in a morning, but instead patinets and doctors spend hours wasting their time.
One of the reasons that people enjoy being self employed is the ability to set their own pace for work. It is immensely frustrating to be at the behest of laziness in colleagues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)